<?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>1987 (4) TMI 9 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5233</link>
    <description>Salary for the last two months was not assessable because an oral agreement to discontinue it preceded the formal resolution, and the amount was not shown to have accrued under the assessee&#039;s accounting method. Dividend taxability linked to section 23A proceedings depended on the status of those proceedings: it was sustained for one company where the earlier basis remained displaced, but not for the other where the later reversal restored the proceedings. Perquisites were not taxable under section 2(6C)(iii) for the relevant year, as the Finance Act, 1955 amendment was not treated as merely clarificatory. The Revenue succeeded only in part on the dividend issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44316" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 9 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5233</link>
      <description>Salary for the last two months was not assessable because an oral agreement to discontinue it preceded the formal resolution, and the amount was not shown to have accrued under the assessee&#039;s accounting method. Dividend taxability linked to section 23A proceedings depended on the status of those proceedings: it was sustained for one company where the earlier basis remained displaced, but not for the other where the later reversal restored the proceedings. Perquisites were not taxable under section 2(6C)(iii) for the relevant year, as the Finance Act, 1955 amendment was not treated as merely clarificatory. The Revenue succeeded only in part on the dividend issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>