<?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>2018 (9) TMI 949 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367213</link>
    <description>A payment described as leadership fees by an association of persons to one member was treated as a non-deductible appropriation of profits rather than business expenditure. The absence of evidence that the member rendered real services, the predetermined receipt-sharing arrangement, and the fact that one constituent merely secured the contract while execution rested with another showed that the amount was in substance profit sharing. The statutory bar on such payments to a member of an association of persons therefore applied, and commercial expediency could not override it. Earlier years&#039; treatment did not assist because each assessment year is separate and res judicata does not apply in income-tax proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=534659" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 949 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367213</link>
      <description>A payment described as leadership fees by an association of persons to one member was treated as a non-deductible appropriation of profits rather than business expenditure. The absence of evidence that the member rendered real services, the predetermined receipt-sharing arrangement, and the fact that one constituent merely secured the contract while execution rested with another showed that the amount was in substance profit sharing. The statutory bar on such payments to a member of an association of persons therefore applied, and commercial expediency could not override it. Earlier years&#039; treatment did not assist because each assessment year is separate and res judicata does not apply in income-tax proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367213</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>