<?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>2009 (1) TMI 60 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32695</link>
    <description>Commission paid to sister concerns and marketing and sales promotion s were treated as non-genuine where the recipient entities had substantially common partners and close relatives, and the arrangement appeared to replace one concern with another for the same activities. In the absence of satisfactory material showing independent services beyond the assessee&#039;s business, the payments were viewed as a mechanism to divert business profits to concerns controlled by the same persons. The court applied the substance-over-form principle and treated the arrangement as a colourable device lacking commercial substance, so the disallowance was upheld and section 40(b) was rightly invoked.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 Feb 2011 05:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 60 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32695</link>
      <description>Commission paid to sister concerns and marketing and sales promotion s were treated as non-genuine where the recipient entities had substantially common partners and close relatives, and the arrangement appeared to replace one concern with another for the same activities. In the absence of satisfactory material showing independent services beyond the assessee&#039;s business, the payments were viewed as a mechanism to divert business profits to concerns controlled by the same persons. The court applied the substance-over-form principle and treated the arrangement as a colourable device lacking commercial substance, so the disallowance was upheld and section 40(b) was rightly invoked.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>