<?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>1959 (5) TMI 15 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49614</link>
    <description>Exemption under the notification depended on three cumulative conditions: the commission had to be paid out of, or determined by reference to, business profits; the amount had to be disallowed as a deduction because of that mode of payment or determination and included in business profits; and income-tax had to be assessed and charged under the head &quot;business&quot; on the disallowed sum. The object was to avoid double taxation. The Court noted that even if the commission was paid out of profits, the disallowance was not shown to have resulted from the manner of payment or determination. More importantly, &quot;charged&quot; required actual assessment and levy under the business head, which was not established. Exemption was therefore unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 13:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88094" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (5) TMI 15 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49614</link>
      <description>Exemption under the notification depended on three cumulative conditions: the commission had to be paid out of, or determined by reference to, business profits; the amount had to be disallowed as a deduction because of that mode of payment or determination and included in business profits; and income-tax had to be assessed and charged under the head &quot;business&quot; on the disallowed sum. The object was to avoid double taxation. The Court noted that even if the commission was paid out of profits, the disallowance was not shown to have resulted from the manner of payment or determination. More importantly, &quot;charged&quot; required actual assessment and levy under the business head, which was not established. Exemption was therefore unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49614</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>