<?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>2014 (8) TMI 1091 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189353</link>
    <description>The delay in refiling the appeal was condoned due to computerization and court fee issues. The Tribunal upheld the payment to the Director as per employment terms, rejecting the Assessing Officer&#039;s argument for disallowing it as dividend. The Tribunal emphasized the tax advantages of commission over dividend, citing precedent. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed based on the Tribunal&#039;s detailed analysis of the Income Tax Act provisions and tax implications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:30:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 1091 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189353</link>
      <description>The delay in refiling the appeal was condoned due to computerization and court fee issues. The Tribunal upheld the payment to the Director as per employment terms, rejecting the Assessing Officer&#039;s argument for disallowing it as dividend. The Tribunal emphasized the tax advantages of commission over dividend, citing precedent. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed based on the Tribunal&#039;s detailed analysis of the Income Tax Act provisions and tax implications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189353</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>