<?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>1973 (2) TMI 18 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8915</link>
    <description>Gratuity paid to employees is deductible as business expenditure only if it is shown to have been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. A mere payment made in the course of business is insufficient; the relevant test is whether the payment was made on grounds of commercial expediency, as part of a remuneration practice, or to facilitate the future conduct of the business. On the facts noted, there was no prior gratuity scheme, no uniform practice, no pre-existing obligation, and no consistent basis linked to service or salary. The payments were described as ex gratia and were treated as ad hoc, so the deduction claim failed under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (2) TMI 18 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8915</link>
      <description>Gratuity paid to employees is deductible as business expenditure only if it is shown to have been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. A mere payment made in the course of business is insufficient; the relevant test is whether the payment was made on grounds of commercial expediency, as part of a remuneration practice, or to facilitate the future conduct of the business. On the facts noted, there was no prior gratuity scheme, no uniform practice, no pre-existing obligation, and no consistent basis linked to service or salary. The payments were described as ex gratia and were treated as ad hoc, so the deduction claim failed under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8915</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>