<?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 (8) TMI 23 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7175</link>
    <description>Excess remuneration paid to a managing director was examined as a business deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The governing test was commercial expediency: expenditure need not yield a direct benefit if it is voluntarily incurred for the ultimate benefit of the business. On the facts, the managing director&#039;s services increased the managed company&#039;s profits and, in turn, the assessee&#039;s managing agency commission; the arrangement was bona fide and connected with business advantage. The payment was therefore treated as laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee&#039;s business, and the disallowance could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46227" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (8) TMI 23 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7175</link>
      <description>Excess remuneration paid to a managing director was examined as a business deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The governing test was commercial expediency: expenditure need not yield a direct benefit if it is voluntarily incurred for the ultimate benefit of the business. On the facts, the managing director&#039;s services increased the managed company&#039;s profits and, in turn, the assessee&#039;s managing agency commission; the arrangement was bona fide and connected with business advantage. The payment was therefore treated as laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee&#039;s business, and the disallowance could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7175</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>