<?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>1959 (12) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276844</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 878-F applied only where remuneration was received for services, paid out of the business profits, and disallowed in the employer&#039;s assessment because of that mode of payment. The employer&#039;s deduction was rejected instead on the independent ground that the remuneration was excessive and not wholly and exclusively laid out for business purposes under the Income-tax Act, 1922. Since the disallowance did not arise from payment out of profits or a profit-linked character of the sum, the notification&#039;s conditions were not satisfied. The disallowed portion of the remuneration therefore remained taxable in the employee&#039;s hands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2018 13:08:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (12) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276844</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 878-F applied only where remuneration was received for services, paid out of the business profits, and disallowed in the employer&#039;s assessment because of that mode of payment. The employer&#039;s deduction was rejected instead on the independent ground that the remuneration was excessive and not wholly and exclusively laid out for business purposes under the Income-tax Act, 1922. Since the disallowance did not arise from payment out of profits or a profit-linked character of the sum, the notification&#039;s conditions were not satisfied. The disallowed portion of the remuneration therefore remained taxable in the employee&#039;s hands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276844</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>