<?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>Consultancy Fees to doctors from firm - treatment</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=118654</link>
    <description>A partnership of doctors paid consultancy fees to partner-doctors in addition to remuneration; while one view treats such consultancy as separate professional earnings, the prevailing judicial reasoning treats consultancy fees and remuneration together under the statutory ceiling on partner payments and holds that partners cannot be characterised as external experts to avoid statutory restrictions on firm expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2023 13:40:56 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:54:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=719981" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Consultancy Fees to doctors from firm - treatment</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=118654</link>
      <description>A partnership of doctors paid consultancy fees to partner-doctors in addition to remuneration; while one view treats such consultancy as separate professional earnings, the prevailing judicial reasoning treats consultancy fees and remuneration together under the statutory ceiling on partner payments and holds that partners cannot be characterised as external experts to avoid statutory restrictions on firm expenditure.</description>
      <category>Discussion-Forum</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2023 13:40:56 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=118654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>