<?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 39 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16572</link>
    <description>The court partially ruled in favor of the Department, classifying salary to watchmen and depreciation allowance as perquisites, while excluding rates and taxes, maintenance of vehicles, and personal accident insurance premium from being treated as perquisites. On the second issue, the court held that the disallowed sums under sales promotion and miscellaneous expenses should be regarded as entertainment expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:47:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 39 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16572</link>
      <description>The court partially ruled in favor of the Department, classifying salary to watchmen and depreciation allowance as perquisites, while excluding rates and taxes, maintenance of vehicles, and personal accident insurance premium from being treated as perquisites. On the second issue, the court held that the disallowed sums under sales promotion and miscellaneous expenses should be regarded as entertainment expenditure.</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=16572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>