<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (5) TMI 1155 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328174</link>
    <description>The Bombay High Court held that premiums paid on Keyman Insurance Policies are allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that Keyman Insurance Policies serve to protect businesses from financial losses due to the premature death of a partner, making such premiums a legitimate business expense. The Central Board of Direct Taxes&#039; Circular 762 supported this view, clarifying that premiums on Keyman Insurance Policies are admissible as business expenditure. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was upheld, dismissing the appeal as no substantial question of law arose in the matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429848" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 1155 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328174</link>
      <description>The Bombay High Court held that premiums paid on Keyman Insurance Policies are allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that Keyman Insurance Policies serve to protect businesses from financial losses due to the premature death of a partner, making such premiums a legitimate business expense. The Central Board of Direct Taxes&#039; Circular 762 supported this view, clarifying that premiums on Keyman Insurance Policies are admissible as business expenditure. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was upheld, dismissing the appeal as no substantial question of law arose in the matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>