<?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>1996 (3) TMI 78 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18078</link>
    <description>The court allowed the applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, directing the Tribunal to state cases and refer a reformulated question of law regarding the entitlement of assessees to claim 40% expenses from incentive bonuses or commissions. The judgment aimed to resolve conflicting opinions, emphasizing the need for clarity on this issue. Counsel fees were fixed, and the Tribunal was instructed to comply with the directions within a specified timeframe.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:56:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57078" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 78 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18078</link>
      <description>The court allowed the applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, directing the Tribunal to state cases and refer a reformulated question of law regarding the entitlement of assessees to claim 40% expenses from incentive bonuses or commissions. The judgment aimed to resolve conflicting opinions, emphasizing the need for clarity on this issue. Counsel fees were fixed, and the Tribunal was instructed to comply with the directions within a specified timeframe.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>