Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
