<?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 (11) TMI 27 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49249</link>
    <description>A statutory proviso prescribing specific factors-employee pay and service conditions, business profits for the year, and general practice in similar businesses-must be applied when assessing reasonableness of bonus payments under the relevant tax provision; the Tribunal focused on alleged lack of relation to salary and suspicious ledger entries without addressing low average salaries, substantial profits, absence of other employee amenities, or practice in similar trades, which the High Court found determinative. Because the Tribunal failed to consider the proviso factors, its partial disallowance of bonus payments was a misdirection in law and the outcome favoured the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (11) TMI 27 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49249</link>
      <description>A statutory proviso prescribing specific factors-employee pay and service conditions, business profits for the year, and general practice in similar businesses-must be applied when assessing reasonableness of bonus payments under the relevant tax provision; the Tribunal focused on alleged lack of relation to salary and suspicious ledger entries without addressing low average salaries, substantial profits, absence of other employee amenities, or practice in similar trades, which the High Court found determinative. Because the Tribunal failed to consider the proviso factors, its partial disallowance of bonus payments was a misdirection in law and the outcome favoured the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>