Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1201 to 1220 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal considered whether income earned in India by the Appellant is taxable, focusing on the denial of DTAA benefits between India and UAE. The CIT(A) disbelieved the Appellant's claim under Article 24 of the DTAA, citing a mobile number discrepancy. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reliance on a mobile number to deny the Appellant's status as the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority was unfounded. Verification of PAN and address or consultation with the assessee should have been pursued. The Tribunal found the Appellant eligible for benefits under Article 24, exempting income from India. As the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority was specifically named in the DTAA, its income was deemed non-taxable in India. Consequently, the interest income was held as non-taxable, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal considered whether income earned in India by the Appellant is taxable, focusing on the denial of DTAA benefits between India and UAE. The CIT(A) disbelieved the Appellant's claim under Article 24 of the DTAA, citing a mobile number discrepancy. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reliance on a mobile number to deny the Appellant's status as the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority was unfounded. Verification of PAN and address or consultation with the assessee should have been pursued. The Tribunal found the Appellant eligible for benefits under Article 24, exempting income from India. As the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority was specifically named in the DTAA, its income was deemed non-taxable in India. Consequently, the interest income was held as non-taxable, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
