<?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>1991 (7) TMI 383 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284895</link>
    <description>The Tribunal reversed the CIT (Appeals) decision disallowing brokerage and commission payments under section 40A(2)(b) for the assessment year 1988-89. It held that the payments were rebates, not commissions, made to firms and not individuals related to the partners of the firm, thus falling outside the purview of section 40A(2). The Tribunal emphasized the nature of the payments as discounts, not for services rendered, and highlighted the absence of excessive or unreasonable payments, ultimately allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:58:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597414" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (7) TMI 383 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284895</link>
      <description>The Tribunal reversed the CIT (Appeals) decision disallowing brokerage and commission payments under section 40A(2)(b) for the assessment year 1988-89. It held that the payments were rebates, not commissions, made to firms and not individuals related to the partners of the firm, thus falling outside the purview of section 40A(2). The Tribunal emphasized the nature of the payments as discounts, not for services rendered, and highlighted the absence of excessive or unreasonable payments, ultimately allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>