<?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>1970 (3) TMI 29 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8007</link>
    <description>A company&#039;s payment for a director&#039;s foreign tour, including expenses of the director and his wife, was treated as taxable income because section 2(6C)(iii) extended the definition of income to benefits or perquisites conferred by a company on a director. The court held that the substance of the receipt, not the form of advance or reimbursement, controlled the analysis, and rejected the argument that directorial status had to be specially linked or that substantial shareholding was required. It also held that a director may be engaged in an occupation, so the payment did not qualify as a casual, non-recurring receipt exempt under section 4(3)(vii).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47055" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (3) TMI 29 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8007</link>
      <description>A company&#039;s payment for a director&#039;s foreign tour, including expenses of the director and his wife, was treated as taxable income because section 2(6C)(iii) extended the definition of income to benefits or perquisites conferred by a company on a director. The court held that the substance of the receipt, not the form of advance or reimbursement, controlled the analysis, and rejected the argument that directorial status had to be specially linked or that substantial shareholding was required. It also held that a director may be engaged in an occupation, so the payment did not qualify as a casual, non-recurring receipt exempt under section 4(3)(vii).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>