<?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>1977 (11) TMI 10 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36977</link>
    <description>A partner&#039;s share of partnership profits is business income, and expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively to earn that share may be deductible. Payment made by the partner to an assistant was treated as real and supported by a bona fide arrangement for assistance in carrying out work for the firm. The relevant test was commercial necessity and nexus with earning the share income, not whether the revenue considered the payment prudent. On the facts, the partner&#039;s infirm health, the nature of the work, and the assistance actually rendered justified the arrangement, so the deduction was allowable and the disallowance was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:38:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75523" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (11) TMI 10 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36977</link>
      <description>A partner&#039;s share of partnership profits is business income, and expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively to earn that share may be deductible. Payment made by the partner to an assistant was treated as real and supported by a bona fide arrangement for assistance in carrying out work for the firm. The relevant test was commercial necessity and nexus with earning the share income, not whether the revenue considered the payment prudent. On the facts, the partner&#039;s infirm health, the nature of the work, and the assistance actually rendered justified the arrangement, so the deduction was allowable and the disallowance was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>