<?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>Court Questions Commission Expenditure Validity Due to Missing Evidence u/s 37(1) of Income Tax Act.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=30341</link>
    <description>Commission expenditure - When the primarily evidence of nature of services rendered for which Assessee paid commission is not on record, it is not possible to say whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and also as to whether explanation to Sec.37(1) of the Act would be attracted. - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2016 12:37:25 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2016 12:37:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Questions Commission Expenditure Validity Due to Missing Evidence u/s 37(1) of Income Tax Act.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=30341</link>
      <description>Commission expenditure - When the primarily evidence of nature of services rendered for which Assessee paid commission is not on record, it is not possible to say whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and also as to whether explanation to Sec.37(1) of the Act would be attracted. - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2016 12:37:25 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=30341</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>