<?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>1999 (11) TMI 2 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12408</link>
    <description>Commission paid to sales agents was held not to constitute sales promotion expenditure, because sales promotion was understood to cover advertisement, publicity, incentive measures and similar steps used to popularise a product and stimulate sales. On that construction, commission on sales fell outside the scope of section 37(3A), so the disallowance did not apply and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 2 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12408</link>
      <description>Commission paid to sales agents was held not to constitute sales promotion expenditure, because sales promotion was understood to cover advertisement, publicity, incentive measures and similar steps used to popularise a product and stimulate sales. On that construction, commission on sales fell outside the scope of section 37(3A), so the disallowance did not apply and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12408</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>