<?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>1968 (12) TMI 2 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7400</link>
    <description>Director&#039;s remuneration accrues where the services giving rise to it are actually rendered, not where the company is registered, keeps its books, or earns its profits. On the finding that the assessee substantially performed his directoral duties from Kanpur in British India, the income arose in British India and not in Bhopal. The remuneration therefore did not qualify for exemption under section 14(2)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the exemption was unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (12) TMI 2 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7400</link>
      <description>Director&#039;s remuneration accrues where the services giving rise to it are actually rendered, not where the company is registered, keeps its books, or earns its profits. On the finding that the assessee substantially performed his directoral duties from Kanpur in British India, the income arose in British India and not in Bhopal. The remuneration therefore did not qualify for exemption under section 14(2)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the exemption was unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>