<?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>1981 (4) TMI 279 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287007</link>
    <description>Gratuity paid to a director who was also an employee was treated as remuneration within the wide meaning of recompense for services, including salary, bonus, commission and gratuity. The applicable ceiling was the overall limit under section 40(c), read with the first proviso to section 40A(5), and no separate limit under section 40A(5)(c) was available merely because the payment arose on retirement or cessation of service. On gifts and presentations, the restricted disallowance was sustained as a reasonable business-linked estimate. The deletion of disallowance for rent of the hired flat was also upheld because business purpose was not disproved on the record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2020 19:07:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=608003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (4) TMI 279 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287007</link>
      <description>Gratuity paid to a director who was also an employee was treated as remuneration within the wide meaning of recompense for services, including salary, bonus, commission and gratuity. The applicable ceiling was the overall limit under section 40(c), read with the first proviso to section 40A(5), and no separate limit under section 40A(5)(c) was available merely because the payment arose on retirement or cessation of service. On gifts and presentations, the restricted disallowance was sustained as a reasonable business-linked estimate. The deletion of disallowance for rent of the hired flat was also upheld because business purpose was not disproved on the record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>