<?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>1995 (1) TMI 114 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60899</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, following the High Court&#039;s ruling, that the headwise limit under Section 40A(5) applies to salary and perquisites of directors who are also employees, rather than the higher ceiling of Rs. 1,02,000 under Section 40(c). The appeal was dismissed, affirming the disallowance of Rs. 52,071 under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 14:47:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99346" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 114 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60899</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, following the High Court&#039;s ruling, that the headwise limit under Section 40A(5) applies to salary and perquisites of directors who are also employees, rather than the higher ceiling of Rs. 1,02,000 under Section 40(c). The appeal was dismissed, affirming the disallowance of Rs. 52,071 under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60899</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>