<?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>1965 (8) TMI 98 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200356</link>
    <description>Commission paid to directors and managers under Rule 12(1) of Schedule 1 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be disallowed where, on the facts, the expenditure was not shown to be reasonable and necessary having regard to the business needs and actual services rendered. A board resolution fixing commission on profits without deducting excess profits tax did not control the statutory test, and payment under an agreement did not prevent disallowance if the allowance conditions were unmet. A tax decision for one accounting period did not operate as res judicata for later periods; in successive assessments, the governing principle is ordinarily stare decisis rather than finality by res judicata.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 22 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:36:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514753" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (8) TMI 98 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200356</link>
      <description>Commission paid to directors and managers under Rule 12(1) of Schedule 1 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be disallowed where, on the facts, the expenditure was not shown to be reasonable and necessary having regard to the business needs and actual services rendered. A board resolution fixing commission on profits without deducting excess profits tax did not control the statutory test, and payment under an agreement did not prevent disallowance if the allowance conditions were unmet. A tax decision for one accounting period did not operate as res judicata for later periods; in successive assessments, the governing principle is ordinarily stare decisis rather than finality by res judicata.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200356</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>