<?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 (8) TMI 1005 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411427</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that expenses incurred on doctors by a pharmaceutical company did not constitute commission under Section 194H of the Income Tax Act. The court found no agency relationship between the company and the doctors based on documentary evidence, concluding that the doctors were not obligated to prescribe specific medicines. As a result, the court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant Department, stating there was no substantial question of law involved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Dec 2021 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=653890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 1005 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411427</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that expenses incurred on doctors by a pharmaceutical company did not constitute commission under Section 194H of the Income Tax Act. The court found no agency relationship between the company and the doctors based on documentary evidence, concluding that the doctors were not obligated to prescribe specific medicines. As a result, the court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant Department, stating there was no substantial question of law involved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411427</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>