<?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>1987 (3) TMI 3 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23645</link>
    <description>Weighted deduction under section 35B was denied because the expenditure did not fall within the qualifying statutory categories. The High Court followed its earlier ruling that the claimed outlay was outside section 35B, and the assessee&#039;s argument that the foreign buyer was located through an Indian agent and commission was paid in India did not bring the payment within clauses (ii) or (iii). Both referred questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:30:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 3 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23645</link>
      <description>Weighted deduction under section 35B was denied because the expenditure did not fall within the qualifying statutory categories. The High Court followed its earlier ruling that the claimed outlay was outside section 35B, and the assessee&#039;s argument that the foreign buyer was located through an Indian agent and commission was paid in India did not bring the payment within clauses (ii) or (iii). Both referred questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>