<?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>1997 (2) TMI 24 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15993</link>
    <description>Additional remuneration did not accrue for tax purposes until the profits were finally ascertained and approved, so it was not assessable in the relevant assessment year. Compensation for premature termination of the consultancy contract was treated as capital receipt because it impaired the assessee&#039;s profit-making structure and represented loss of a source of income, not ordinary remuneration for services. The amount was also outside section 28(ii)(c) because the arrangement was a consultancy contract on a principal-to-principal basis, not an agency relationship. The Department failed on all three questions and the assessee succeeded on the substantive tax issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:28:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 24 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15993</link>
      <description>Additional remuneration did not accrue for tax purposes until the profits were finally ascertained and approved, so it was not assessable in the relevant assessment year. Compensation for premature termination of the consultancy contract was treated as capital receipt because it impaired the assessee&#039;s profit-making structure and represented loss of a source of income, not ordinary remuneration for services. The amount was also outside section 28(ii)(c) because the arrangement was a consultancy contract on a principal-to-principal basis, not an agency relationship. The Department failed on all three questions and the assessee succeeded on the substantive tax issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>