Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
941 to 960 of 96001 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 upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s exercise of suo moto power u/s 154 to rectify their earlier order. The CIT(A) had not considered the Supreme Court's ratio decidendi in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., which amounts to a mistake apparent on record. The assessee club claimed interest income as non-taxable based on mutuality principles, but the Assessing Officer rejected this claim after allowing 10% deduction for expenses. The Tribunal found the assessee did not raise this claim before the AO or CIT(A) initially, nor provide evidence to substantiate their case aligning with the Bangalore Club judgments. Therefore, the AO rightly moved for rectification before CIT(A) in light of the Madras High Court's binding order in the assessee's own case, which concurred with the Bangalore Club ratio upheld by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as devoid of merit.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s exercise of suo moto power u/s 154 to rectify their earlier order. The CIT(A) had not considered the Supreme Court's ratio decidendi in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., which amounts to a mistake apparent on record. The assessee club claimed interest income as non-taxable based on mutuality principles, but the Assessing Officer rejected this claim after allowing 10% deduction for expenses. The Tribunal found the assessee did not raise this claim before the AO or CIT(A) initially, nor provide evidence to substantiate their case aligning with the Bangalore Club judgments. Therefore, the AO rightly moved for rectification before CIT(A) in light of the Madras High Court's binding order in the assessee's own case, which concurred with the Bangalore Club ratio upheld by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as devoid of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
