<?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>1955 (2) TMI 16 - TRAVANCORE-COCHIN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188324</link>
    <description>Charges levied by a trade association under its bye-laws for clearly defined services to members constituted remuneration definitely related to specific services and were taxable under section 10(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Admission fee, monthly fee and turnover-based contributions were treated as part of the consideration for services such as promotion of trade, regulation of practices, settlement of disputes and dissemination of information. The services were not merely general membership privileges but distinct and precisely identified services, and the existence of a separate arbitration fee did not change that character. The collections were therefore held chargeable to tax under section 10(6), in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2016 16:47:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (2) TMI 16 - TRAVANCORE-COCHIN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188324</link>
      <description>Charges levied by a trade association under its bye-laws for clearly defined services to members constituted remuneration definitely related to specific services and were taxable under section 10(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Admission fee, monthly fee and turnover-based contributions were treated as part of the consideration for services such as promotion of trade, regulation of practices, settlement of disputes and dissemination of information. The services were not merely general membership privileges but distinct and precisely identified services, and the existence of a separate arbitration fee did not change that character. The collections were therefore held chargeable to tax under section 10(6), in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>