<?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 (11) TMI 46 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8981</link>
    <description>For section 384 of the Companies Act, 1956, a body corporate is a manager only if it controls the whole or substantially the whole of the company&#039;s affairs while remaining subject to the board&#039;s superintendence, control and direction. Where the arrangement shows independent delegated management rather than subordinate managerial control, the statutory definition is not satisfied, even if the agreement labels the party as a manager. On that construction, the remuneration paid under such an arrangement was not liable to disallowance as inadmissible business expenditure, and the assessee&#039;s later dispute over recovery did not affect deductibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48020" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (11) TMI 46 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8981</link>
      <description>For section 384 of the Companies Act, 1956, a body corporate is a manager only if it controls the whole or substantially the whole of the company&#039;s affairs while remaining subject to the board&#039;s superintendence, control and direction. Where the arrangement shows independent delegated management rather than subordinate managerial control, the statutory definition is not satisfied, even if the agreement labels the party as a manager. On that construction, the remuneration paid under such an arrangement was not liable to disallowance as inadmissible business expenditure, and the assessee&#039;s later dispute over recovery did not affect deductibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>