<?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>2001 (2) TMI 98 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14276</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that sitting fees paid to directors are considered remuneration under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court determined that such fees constitute payment for services rendered and are subject to disallowance. Consequently, the additions made by the Income-tax Officer were upheld, emphasizing that sitting fees are encompassed by section 40(c) and must be included in the computation of disallowance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:26:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 98 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14276</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that sitting fees paid to directors are considered remuneration under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court determined that such fees constitute payment for services rendered and are subject to disallowance. Consequently, the additions made by the Income-tax Officer were upheld, emphasizing that sitting fees are encompassed by section 40(c) and must be included in the computation of disallowance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>