<?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>1949 (3) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276597</link>
    <description>Commission paid to employees was deductible only if, on a factual appraisal of the business circumstances, it was shown to have been laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes; agreement and actual payment alone were insufficient, so the deduction was disallowed. Because the amount had already been disallowed under the income-tax law, no separate permission was needed under the excess profits tax provisions. On the reference procedure, the High Court was entitled to identify the questions of law arising from the Tribunal&#039;s order, and the Tribunal then had to frame the connected statement of case; the procedural objection therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2018 15:09:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541824" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1949 (3) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276597</link>
      <description>Commission paid to employees was deductible only if, on a factual appraisal of the business circumstances, it was shown to have been laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes; agreement and actual payment alone were insufficient, so the deduction was disallowed. Because the amount had already been disallowed under the income-tax law, no separate permission was needed under the excess profits tax provisions. On the reference procedure, the High Court was entitled to identify the questions of law arising from the Tribunal&#039;s order, and the Tribunal then had to frame the connected statement of case; the procedural objection therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276597</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>