<?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>2021 (7) TMI 354 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409512</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the decision in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Tax Case Appeal challenging the disallowance of commission payment to the Managing Director under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The court considered previous judgments and concluded that the questions of law were covered by established precedents, aligning with legal principles favoring the assessee. The appeal was dismissed without costs, emphasizing consistency with prior court decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2021 09:34:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=649155" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (7) TMI 354 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409512</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the decision in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Tax Case Appeal challenging the disallowance of commission payment to the Managing Director under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The court considered previous judgments and concluded that the questions of law were covered by established precedents, aligning with legal principles favoring the assessee. The appeal was dismissed without costs, emphasizing consistency with prior court decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409512</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>