<?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>1990 (8) TMI 39 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22411</link>
    <description>Cash allowances such as fixed monthly allowance, bonus, incentives, car allowance and house rent allowance were held not to fall within the expression &quot;benefit, amenity or perquisite&quot; for disallowance under section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Applying its earlier binding view, the Bombay HC answered the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee, so these cash payments were outside the disallowance provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:31:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (8) TMI 39 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22411</link>
      <description>Cash allowances such as fixed monthly allowance, bonus, incentives, car allowance and house rent allowance were held not to fall within the expression &quot;benefit, amenity or perquisite&quot; for disallowance under section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Applying its earlier binding view, the Bombay HC answered the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee, so these cash payments were outside the disallowance provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>