<?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>2008 (4) TMI 280 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32204</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the commission paid to directors was not subject to disallowance under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized the variable nature of the commission, which was determined based on net profits and not fixed for each director. This decision distinguished the case from previous rulings where remuneration was fixed, leading to the conclusion that the commission did not qualify as remuneration under the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 280 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32204</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the commission paid to directors was not subject to disallowance under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized the variable nature of the commission, which was determined based on net profits and not fixed for each director. This decision distinguished the case from previous rulings where remuneration was fixed, leading to the conclusion that the commission did not qualify as remuneration under the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32204</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>