Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessee, a trust, claimed to be taxed at the same rate applicable to its beneficiary u/s 115BAA. However, this claim was dismissed as the assessee was not treated as a representative assessee. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's status as a representative assessee and held that since the assessee is a determinate trust with RIIHL as its sole beneficiary and settler, and RIIHL has opted for taxation under the new regime at 22%, the assessee is also liable to be taxed at the same rate. The court held that u/s 161(1), a representative assessee shall be taxed in the same manner and to the same extent as the person represented. Since RIIHL was taxed u/s 115BAA, the assessee trust should also be taxed at the same rate. The court distinguished the case from Mrs. Amy F. Cama, where the trust was not considered a representative assessee. The Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was upheld.
The assessee, a trust, claimed to be taxed at the same rate applicable to its beneficiary u/s 115BAA. However, this claim was dismissed as the assessee was not treated as a representative assessee. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's status as a representative assessee and held that since the assessee is a determinate trust with RIIHL as its sole beneficiary and settler, and RIIHL has opted for taxation under the new regime at 22%, the assessee is also liable to be taxed at the same rate. The court held that u/s 161(1), a representative assessee shall be taxed in the same manner and to the same extent as the person represented. Since RIIHL was taxed u/s 115BAA, the assessee trust should also be taxed at the same rate. The court distinguished the case from Mrs. Amy F. Cama, where the trust was not considered a representative assessee. The Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
