<?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>1965 (3) TMI 17 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49242</link>
    <description>In bonus computation, income-tax under section 23A could not be deducted unless it was actually levied, so a notional deduction was disallowed. The article also notes that the rehabilitation allowance could be capped at rupees one lakh where the surrounding material, including the employer&#039;s prior position and lack of convincing proof of sustained rehabilitation expenditure, did not show the tribunal&#039;s approach to be erroneous. On that basis, the bonus award at 10 per cent of basic earnings remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2014 19:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (3) TMI 17 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49242</link>
      <description>In bonus computation, income-tax under section 23A could not be deducted unless it was actually levied, so a notional deduction was disallowed. The article also notes that the rehabilitation allowance could be capped at rupees one lakh where the surrounding material, including the employer&#039;s prior position and lack of convincing proof of sustained rehabilitation expenditure, did not show the tribunal&#039;s approach to be erroneous. On that basis, the bonus award at 10 per cent of basic earnings remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>