<?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>Revenue Authority Cannot Classify Reimbursed Employee Secondment Salary as Non-Deductible Expenditure.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=45018</link>
    <description>Justification for the expenditure - amount paid towards secondment of employees - The contention of the AO that, real beneficiary of the Australian entity’s employees was not the JV but the AE, rejected. - Revenue is not permitted to hold salary payment reimbursed to AE is a non deductible expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2019 07:51:39 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2019 07:11:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=562193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Revenue Authority Cannot Classify Reimbursed Employee Secondment Salary as Non-Deductible Expenditure.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=45018</link>
      <description>Justification for the expenditure - amount paid towards secondment of employees - The contention of the AO that, real beneficiary of the Australian entity’s employees was not the JV but the AE, rejected. - Revenue is not permitted to hold salary payment reimbursed to AE is a non deductible expenditure.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2019 07:51:39 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=45018</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>