Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96262 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 4814 
Join Channel 
