<?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>1942 (9) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284221</link>
    <description>Commission earned under an agreement tied to Indore sales did not accrue or arise in British India, because the sales were completed in Indore and the sale proceeds collected in Bombay were not the source of the commission; the answer on this issue was in favour of the assessee. The claim that the cotton Jatha activity had ceased as a separate business was a question of fact, and the High Court would not disturb the Income-tax Officer&#039;s finding where there was evidence of separate books, different names, and distinct business character; this issue was decided against the assessee. The reference was thus answered partly for and partly against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 1942 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2019 12:24:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=593363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1942 (9) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284221</link>
      <description>Commission earned under an agreement tied to Indore sales did not accrue or arise in British India, because the sales were completed in Indore and the sale proceeds collected in Bombay were not the source of the commission; the answer on this issue was in favour of the assessee. The claim that the cotton Jatha activity had ceased as a separate business was a question of fact, and the High Court would not disturb the Income-tax Officer&#039;s finding where there was evidence of separate books, different names, and distinct business character; this issue was decided against the assessee. The reference was thus answered partly for and partly against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 1942 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284221</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>