Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1521 to 1540 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Income from Other Sources u/s 56(2) - interest received u/Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 granted by the learned Reference Court - The Tribunal agrees with the appellant's contention that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the land acquisition compensation itself and thus not taxable under Section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act. - The Tribunal holds that decisions of the Bombay bench of the High Court, within its territorial jurisdiction, prevail over those of the Aurangabad bench. Therefore, it upholds the appellant's argument that the Bombay bench's decision applies to the case at hand, leading to a favorable outcome for the assessee.
Income from Other Sources u/s 56(2) - interest received u/Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 granted by the learned Reference Court - The Tribunal agrees with the appellant's contention that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the land acquisition compensation itself and thus not taxable under Section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act. - The Tribunal holds that decisions of the Bombay bench of the High Court, within its territorial jurisdiction, prevail over those of the Aurangabad bench. Therefore, it upholds the appellant's argument that the Bombay bench's decision applies to the case at hand, leading to a favorable outcome for the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
