<?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>1976 (3) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38030</link>
    <description>Part of the remuneration and rent-free furnished accommodation provided to a managing director was examined against the company&#039;s legitimate business needs and the benefit derived by it, applying an objective prudent-businessman standard. The Tribunal&#039;s finding was supported by evidence on the nature of the business, the directors&#039; functions, turnover and profits, the comparative role of another managing director, the concerned director&#039;s physical handicap, and family control of the company. The partial disallowance rested on relevant considerations and was not shown to be based on no evidence, conjecture, or perversity, so it was upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:07:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=76576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (3) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38030</link>
      <description>Part of the remuneration and rent-free furnished accommodation provided to a managing director was examined against the company&#039;s legitimate business needs and the benefit derived by it, applying an objective prudent-businessman standard. The Tribunal&#039;s finding was supported by evidence on the nature of the business, the directors&#039; functions, turnover and profits, the comparative role of another managing director, the concerned director&#039;s physical handicap, and family control of the company. The partial disallowance rested on relevant considerations and was not shown to be based on no evidence, conjecture, or perversity, so it was upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>