<?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 (2) TMI 46 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25858</link>
    <description>Weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b) was denied because the point was governed by an earlier High Court ruling, and the claim failed. On bonus payments, section 36(1)(ii) was held to permit deduction of bonus or commission for services rendered even where employees were covered by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965; the first and second provisos must be read together, so excess bonus is not automatically disallowed. It remains deductible if it satisfies the statutory tests of reasonableness with reference to pay, service conditions, business profits and comparable practice. The remand for factual reconsideration was upheld because those conditions had to be examined by the tax authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:19:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64856" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 46 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25858</link>
      <description>Weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b) was denied because the point was governed by an earlier High Court ruling, and the claim failed. On bonus payments, section 36(1)(ii) was held to permit deduction of bonus or commission for services rendered even where employees were covered by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965; the first and second provisos must be read together, so excess bonus is not automatically disallowed. It remains deductible if it satisfies the statutory tests of reasonableness with reference to pay, service conditions, business profits and comparable practice. The remand for factual reconsideration was upheld because those conditions had to be examined by the tax authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>