<?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>1970 (4) TMI 26 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6219</link>
    <description>Arrangements for compensation on breach of managing agency and selling agency agreements were found, on the admitted facts, to be sham and colourable transactions designed to divert funds to persons controlling the assessee without income-tax liability. The claimed compensation was therefore treated as arising from a non-genuine device, and no referable question of law arose under section 66(1). The refusal to call for a statement of the case was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45302" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (4) TMI 26 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6219</link>
      <description>Arrangements for compensation on breach of managing agency and selling agency agreements were found, on the admitted facts, to be sham and colourable transactions designed to divert funds to persons controlling the assessee without income-tax liability. The claimed compensation was therefore treated as arising from a non-genuine device, and no referable question of law arose under section 66(1). The refusal to call for a statement of the case was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>