Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Two key issues: 1) Assessment of rental income received by co-owners as income of an Association of Persons (AOP), and 2) Treatment of income from letting out a plinth as income from house property. Regarding the first issue, the court held that the rental income should be assessed as AOP income as the co-owners jointly received rent, maintained a single account, and raised loans collectively. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in ITO vs Ch. Atchaiah, which allowed assessing AOP income even if members were previously assessed individually. On the second issue, the court ruled that a plinth cannot be treated as a building for the purpose of Section 26 of the Act. A plinth is merely the floor level above the ground, and construction on it does not qualify as a building. Therefore, income from letting out a plinth cannot be considered income from house property, and depreciation cannot be allowed on it.
Two key issues: 1) Assessment of rental income received by co-owners as income of an Association of Persons (AOP), and 2) Treatment of income from letting out a plinth as income from house property. Regarding the first issue, the court held that the rental income should be assessed as AOP income as the co-owners jointly received rent, maintained a single account, and raised loans collectively. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in ITO vs Ch. Atchaiah, which allowed assessing AOP income even if members were previously assessed individually. On the second issue, the court ruled that a plinth cannot be treated as a building for the purpose of Section 26 of the Act. A plinth is merely the floor level above the ground, and construction on it does not qualify as a building. Therefore, income from letting out a plinth cannot be considered income from house property, and depreciation cannot be allowed on it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
