<?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>1988 (12) TMI 69 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24205</link>
    <description>The court upheld the disallowance of a portion of the managing director&#039;s salary due to violation of a condition set by the Company Law Board. The addition of excess sugar price realized was deemed irrelevant based on previous court decisions. The court referred the question of an addition under section 40A(3) regarding certain expenditures for its opinion, directing the Tribunal accordingly, despite a related petition being dismissed by the Supreme Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:28:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63203" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (12) TMI 69 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24205</link>
      <description>The court upheld the disallowance of a portion of the managing director&#039;s salary due to violation of a condition set by the Company Law Board. The addition of excess sugar price realized was deemed irrelevant based on previous court decisions. The court referred the question of an addition under section 40A(3) regarding certain expenditures for its opinion, directing the Tribunal accordingly, despite a related petition being dismissed by the Supreme Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>