<?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 (6) TMI 9 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7121</link>
    <description>Remuneration paid to an agent for managing day-to-day partnership affairs and protecting the assessee&#039;s business interest was treated as deductible business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The court applied the settled test of commercial expediency and accepted that an assessee with a substantial profit share, residing away from the business place and unable to supervise personally, may incur such expenditure bona fide to facilitate business. Because the agreement was genuine, the amount was not shown to be excessive, and no extra-commercial consideration was established, the payment satisfied the requirement of being laid out wholly and exclusively for business.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46176" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (6) TMI 9 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7121</link>
      <description>Remuneration paid to an agent for managing day-to-day partnership affairs and protecting the assessee&#039;s business interest was treated as deductible business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The court applied the settled test of commercial expediency and accepted that an assessee with a substantial profit share, residing away from the business place and unable to supervise personally, may incur such expenditure bona fide to facilitate business. Because the agreement was genuine, the amount was not shown to be excessive, and no extra-commercial consideration was established, the payment satisfied the requirement of being laid out wholly and exclusively for business.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7121</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>