<?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 (4) TMI 16 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49314</link>
    <description>Expenditure paid to a director for work connected with a special Government contract was allowable as business expenditure because allowability depended on whether it was laid out wholly and exclusively for the business on the facts; the director&#039;s special services, the bona fides of the arrangement, and the absence of proof of duplication or excess meant the disallowance failed. Compensation received on premature termination of a managing agency agreement was treated as a capital receipt because cancellation of the agency was shown to affect the profit-making structure and not merely ordinary trading operations, and the Revenue did not prove that it was income. Both issues were decided for the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (4) TMI 16 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49314</link>
      <description>Expenditure paid to a director for work connected with a special Government contract was allowable as business expenditure because allowability depended on whether it was laid out wholly and exclusively for the business on the facts; the director&#039;s special services, the bona fides of the arrangement, and the absence of proof of duplication or excess meant the disallowance failed. Compensation received on premature termination of a managing agency agreement was treated as a capital receipt because cancellation of the agency was shown to affect the profit-making structure and not merely ordinary trading operations, and the Revenue did not prove that it was income. Both issues were decided for the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49314</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>