<?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 (9) TMI 96 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17340</link>
    <description>A Development Officer&#039;s incentive bonus or commission was treated as salary income because it was paid under the terms of employment and formed part of employment-linked remuneration, not business income. The court held that the receipt fell under the head &quot;Salaries&quot; rather than &quot;Profits and gains of business or profession&quot;, and the taxpayer could claim only deductions expressly allowed for salary income. A 40% deduction was rejected because the payment was not a special allowance granted wholly, necessarily and exclusively for duty-related expenses, and the circular relied on for insurance agents did not apply to salaried employees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:39:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 96 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17340</link>
      <description>A Development Officer&#039;s incentive bonus or commission was treated as salary income because it was paid under the terms of employment and formed part of employment-linked remuneration, not business income. The court held that the receipt fell under the head &quot;Salaries&quot; rather than &quot;Profits and gains of business or profession&quot;, and the taxpayer could claim only deductions expressly allowed for salary income. A 40% deduction was rejected because the payment was not a special allowance granted wholly, necessarily and exclusively for duty-related expenses, and the circular relied on for insurance agents did not apply to salaried employees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>