<?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>1967 (1) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6984</link>
    <description>Remuneration paid to directors for the period before a company&#039;s incorporation was not deductible as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The business during that period was still carried on by the Hindu undivided family, so payments made in respect of that earlier period could not be treated as expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the company&#039;s business. The assessee&#039;s unilateral description of the pre-incorporation business as the company&#039;s business did not bind the tax authorities. The deduction claim was therefore rejected and the issue was answered against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 13:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46050" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (1) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6984</link>
      <description>Remuneration paid to directors for the period before a company&#039;s incorporation was not deductible as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The business during that period was still carried on by the Hindu undivided family, so payments made in respect of that earlier period could not be treated as expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the company&#039;s business. The assessee&#039;s unilateral description of the pre-incorporation business as the company&#039;s business did not bind the tax authorities. The deduction claim was therefore rejected and the issue was answered against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>