<?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 (1) TMI 33 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39378</link>
    <description>The court held that the payment of Rs. 12,500 to the deceased employee&#039;s daughter qualified as an admissible business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow the deduction was upheld, emphasizing that the payment was made for maintaining good relations and engendering confidence, aligning with commercial expediency. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, rejecting the revenue&#039;s argument that the payment was ex gratia and not for business purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:05:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=77924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (1) TMI 33 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39378</link>
      <description>The court held that the payment of Rs. 12,500 to the deceased employee&#039;s daughter qualified as an admissible business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow the deduction was upheld, emphasizing that the payment was made for maintaining good relations and engendering confidence, aligning with commercial expediency. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, rejecting the revenue&#039;s argument that the payment was ex gratia and not for business purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>