TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(26) in respect of income arising from Tripura and the capital brought forward or introduced. (ii) Whether the assessment was within the jurisdiction of ACIT, Circle-Tezpur and whether the assessment made under section 144 was vitiated for want of due opportunity.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(26) in respect of income arising from Tripura and the capital brought forward or introduced.
Analysis: The assessee was a Scheduled Tribe resident of Arunachal Pradesh. The income from Tripura fell within a specified area, and the issue was governed by the interpretation of section 10(26) as applied to members of Scheduled Tribes residing in specified areas. The record did not show that the capital brought forward or introduced had been sourced from outside the specified areas. The appellate authority relied on the legal position that the exemption extends to such income when the nexus with non-specified areas is not established.
Conclusion: The exemption under section 10(26) was available to the assessee, and the finding was in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessment was within the jurisdiction of ACIT, Circle-Tezpur and whether the assessment made under section 144 was vitiated for want of due opportunity.
Analysis: The appellate authority found that the jurisdictional arrangement placed the case with ACIT, Circle-Tezpur because the returned income crossed the prescribed monetary limit. It also found that opportunities of hearing had been afforded before completion of the best judgment assessment. The Tribunal found no error in these findings and treated the grievance on opportunity as academic after sustaining the appellate order.
Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection failed and the challenge to the section 144 assessment did not succeed, both being against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The tax exemption granted by the first appellate authority was sustained, and the connected jurisdictional and procedural objections were rejected, resulting in dismissal of both the appeal and the cross objection.
Ratio Decidendi: For section 10(26), income of a Scheduled Tribe resident arising from a specified area remains exempt unless the revenue establishes that the relevant income or capital originated from outside the specified area.
TaxTMI 
