<?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>1999 (8) TMI 27 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15535</link>
    <description>The Court held that the guarantee commission paid to the managing director was not considered remuneration under s. 40(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The Court also resolved the second issue in favor of the assessee based on a previous judgment, deciding that the disallowance for employee-directors should be calculated under s. 40A(5) of the IT Act, 1961. The reference was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:43:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 27 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15535</link>
      <description>The Court held that the guarantee commission paid to the managing director was not considered remuneration under s. 40(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The Court also resolved the second issue in favor of the assessee based on a previous judgment, deciding that the disallowance for employee-directors should be calculated under s. 40A(5) of the IT Act, 1961. The reference was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15535</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>