<?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>1962 (9) TMI 106 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289184</link>
    <description>A first-time gratuity payment to an employee on retirement was held not deductible as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The court applied the test that such a payment must be shown to arise from an established business practice affecting remuneration, an employee&#039;s expectation based on lower salary, or commercial expediency connected with the business. On the facts, there was no scheme, no prior practice, and no evidence that the employee accepted reduced remuneration in anticipation of gratuity. The assessee therefore failed to discharge the burden of proving entitlement to deduction, and the reference was answered against it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2020 13:26:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (9) TMI 106 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289184</link>
      <description>A first-time gratuity payment to an employee on retirement was held not deductible as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The court applied the test that such a payment must be shown to arise from an established business practice affecting remuneration, an employee&#039;s expectation based on lower salary, or commercial expediency connected with the business. On the facts, there was no scheme, no prior practice, and no evidence that the employee accepted reduced remuneration in anticipation of gratuity. The assessee therefore failed to discharge the burden of proving entitlement to deduction, and the reference was answered against it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>