Jurisdictional validity: notice issued by a non jurisdictional officer invalidates reassessment where no formal transfer or independent verification o...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5961 to 5980 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Dividend income was treated at processing as falling under s.10(34) and taxed beyond ₹10 lakh by applying s.115BBDA on the premise that it arose from domestic companies. On evidence showing the dividend was from mutual funds and was necessarily reported in Schedule EI without bifurcation, the Tribunal held that such income squarely falls under s.10(35) and is fully exempt, rendering s.115BBDA inapplicable; the corresponding addition was deleted. On the claimed capital loss, since the first appellate authority had directed verification and allowance if found correct and the supporting documents were on record, no interference was warranted and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes. - ITAT
Dividend income was treated at processing as falling under s.10(34) and taxed beyond ₹10 lakh by applying s.115BBDA on the premise that it arose from domestic companies. On evidence showing the dividend was from mutual funds and was necessarily reported in Schedule EI without bifurcation, the Tribunal held that such income squarely falls under s.10(35) and is fully exempt, rendering s.115BBDA inapplicable; the corresponding addition was deleted. On the claimed capital loss, since the first appellate authority had directed verification and allowance if found correct and the supporting documents were on record, no interference was warranted and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
