Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
The ITAT held that the lease/rental income of the assessee company constitutes business income, as leasing the property is a principal object and the sole source of income, contrary to the assessee's return characterizing it as income from house property. The Tribunal rejected the argument based on the rule of consistency, emphasizing that a claim inconsistent with admitted facts and settled law cannot be perpetuated merely due to non-disturbance by the AO. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO's order restored. Regarding the disallowance of expenses related to the lease income, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, since the CIT(A) had not addressed this issue after altering the income classification.
The ITAT held that the lease/rental income of the assessee company constitutes business income, as leasing the property is a principal object and the sole source of income, contrary to the assessee's return characterizing it as income from house property. The Tribunal rejected the argument based on the rule of consistency, emphasizing that a claim inconsistent with admitted facts and settled law cannot be perpetuated merely due to non-disturbance by the AO. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO's order restored. Regarding the disallowance of expenses related to the lease income, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, since the CIT(A) had not addressed this issue after altering the income classification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.