<?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>1985 (3) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27006</link>
    <description>Remuneration and profit commission paid to a director were held not to be excessive or unreasonable where the payment was commercially justified by the director&#039;s qualifications, experience, business needs, and the work done, and could not be disallowed merely because of a family relationship with the managing director. Expenditure on air transport of a deceased chairman&#039;s body from Delhi to Calcutta was treated as business expenditure because the travel had been undertaken for business purposes and the obligation to arrange return was incidental to that business connection. The governing tests applied were prudent businessman judgment and commercial expediency, with the outgoings required to be wholly and exclusively for business purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:13:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66004" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (3) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27006</link>
      <description>Remuneration and profit commission paid to a director were held not to be excessive or unreasonable where the payment was commercially justified by the director&#039;s qualifications, experience, business needs, and the work done, and could not be disallowed merely because of a family relationship with the managing director. Expenditure on air transport of a deceased chairman&#039;s body from Delhi to Calcutta was treated as business expenditure because the travel had been undertaken for business purposes and the obligation to arrange return was incidental to that business connection. The governing tests applied were prudent businessman judgment and commercial expediency, with the outgoings required to be wholly and exclusively for business purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>