<?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>1962 (9) TMI 98 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276607</link>
    <description>Salary increases paid to executive officers are deductible as business expenditure only if the assessee shows they were laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal could disallow the claim where material supported a non-business motive, but here the record contained no finding backed by evidence that the enhanced remuneration was not business-related. The officers&#039; relationship with a director, the doubling of salaries within two years, and the lack of a corresponding profit increase were insufficient on their own to justify disallowance, and the partial allowance of a fixed amount was also unsupported by reasons or material. The HC therefore held that the disallowance could not be sustained under section 10(2)(xv).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:09:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (9) TMI 98 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276607</link>
      <description>Salary increases paid to executive officers are deductible as business expenditure only if the assessee shows they were laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal could disallow the claim where material supported a non-business motive, but here the record contained no finding backed by evidence that the enhanced remuneration was not business-related. The officers&#039; relationship with a director, the doubling of salaries within two years, and the lack of a corresponding profit increase were insufficient on their own to justify disallowance, and the partial allowance of a fixed amount was also unsupported by reasons or material. The HC therefore held that the disallowance could not be sustained under section 10(2)(xv).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>