<?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>1983 (3) TMI 8 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27309</link>
    <description>Business expenditure is deductible only when incurred wholly for business purposes and not for extra-commercial considerations. The text states that agency commission paid to Smt. Sarada Rajam was treated as a profit-diversion device and therefore not a business deduction, while the finance commission paid to Smt. Sujatha Ramakrishnan was allowed only to the extent it was genuinely business-related, with the balance disallowed. Retrenchment compensation on closure of the service department was held not deductible because the assessee failed to prove that the closed activity formed part of an integrated business. Rebates and allowances linked to the service department were also disallowed for want of proof.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:51:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (3) TMI 8 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27309</link>
      <description>Business expenditure is deductible only when incurred wholly for business purposes and not for extra-commercial considerations. The text states that agency commission paid to Smt. Sarada Rajam was treated as a profit-diversion device and therefore not a business deduction, while the finance commission paid to Smt. Sujatha Ramakrishnan was allowed only to the extent it was genuinely business-related, with the balance disallowed. Retrenchment compensation on closure of the service department was held not deductible because the assessee failed to prove that the closed activity formed part of an integrated business. Rebates and allowances linked to the service department were also disallowed for want of proof.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>