<?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 29 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16373</link>
    <description>The High Court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the commission paid to the retired partners was not part of the total income of the assessee-firm. The court held that the firm acted as a trustee for the retired partners, and the income was diverted by an overriding title before reaching the assessee. The court awarded costs of Rs. 500 to the assessee and answered both issues in favor of the assessee, rejecting the Department&#039;s arguments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:09:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55373" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 29 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16373</link>
      <description>The High Court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the commission paid to the retired partners was not part of the total income of the assessee-firm. The court held that the firm acted as a trustee for the retired partners, and the income was diverted by an overriding title before reaching the assessee. The court awarded costs of Rs. 500 to the assessee and answered both issues in favor of the assessee, rejecting the Department&#039;s arguments.</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=16373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>