<?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>1978 (3) TMI 75 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38027</link>
    <description>The court held that the remuneration received by the assessee for arbitration and commission work was not casual and non-recurring, as it was anticipated, agreed upon, and remunerated as per fixed terms. The receipts were deemed to arise from the exercise of an occupation rather than being exempt under section 10(3) of the Income Tax Act. The court ruled against the assessee, in favor of the department, with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:57:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=76573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (3) TMI 75 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38027</link>
      <description>The court held that the remuneration received by the assessee for arbitration and commission work was not casual and non-recurring, as it was anticipated, agreed upon, and remunerated as per fixed terms. The receipts were deemed to arise from the exercise of an occupation rather than being exempt under section 10(3) of the Income Tax Act. The court ruled against the assessee, in favor of the department, with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>