<?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>1971 (7) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8487</link>
    <description>Reimbursement of common head-office administrative expenses to a parent company is deductible when the payment is incurred wholly and exclusively for the subsidiary&#039;s business and is revenue in nature. The court accepted that the parent company merely rendered services to subsidiaries, including financial assistance, surety support and business advice, and that the apportionment of shared expenses was fair and reasonable because the subsidiary would otherwise have incurred similar costs itself. The separate taxable identity of the parent company did not prevent deduction where the expenditure represented the subsidiary&#039;s contribution for services actually received.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (7) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8487</link>
      <description>Reimbursement of common head-office administrative expenses to a parent company is deductible when the payment is incurred wholly and exclusively for the subsidiary&#039;s business and is revenue in nature. The court accepted that the parent company merely rendered services to subsidiaries, including financial assistance, surety support and business advice, and that the apportionment of shared expenses was fair and reasonable because the subsidiary would otherwise have incurred similar costs itself. The separate taxable identity of the parent company did not prevent deduction where the expenditure represented the subsidiary&#039;s contribution for services actually received.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>