<?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>1998 (11) TMI 39 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15281</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the subsidy deduction issue, holding that the subsidy received should not be deducted from the actual cost for depreciation calculations. However, the court sided with the Revenue regarding commission payments, deeming them as part of the employees&#039; salary under the Income-tax Act. The judgment emphasized the statutory definitions and the inclusive nature of the term &quot;salary,&quot; highlighting that payment labels do not determine their classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:43:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 39 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15281</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the subsidy deduction issue, holding that the subsidy received should not be deducted from the actual cost for depreciation calculations. However, the court sided with the Revenue regarding commission payments, deeming them as part of the employees&#039; salary under the Income-tax Act. The judgment emphasized the statutory definitions and the inclusive nature of the term &quot;salary,&quot; highlighting that payment labels do not determine their classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>