<?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>1959 (4) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189728</link>
    <description>The company remained liable to deduct tax from commission paid to an employee because the amount formed part of the employee&#039;s assessable remuneration under the statutory salary scheme. The notices were sufficient as they identified the company through its principal officer, and the description was not invalid merely because the recipient was not named individually. A later explanation to the provision was treated as clarificatory and did not change the pre-existing obligation to deduct tax. A private arrangement under which the employee agreed to bear the tax could not displace the employer-company&#039;s statutory duty, so the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:53:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (4) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189728</link>
      <description>The company remained liable to deduct tax from commission paid to an employee because the amount formed part of the employee&#039;s assessable remuneration under the statutory salary scheme. The notices were sufficient as they identified the company through its principal officer, and the description was not invalid merely because the recipient was not named individually. A later explanation to the provision was treated as clarificatory and did not change the pre-existing obligation to deduct tax. A private arrangement under which the employee agreed to bear the tax could not displace the employer-company&#039;s statutory duty, so the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189728</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>