<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1978 (5) TMI 59 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67704</link>
    <description>A transfer credited through book entries pursuant to a binding arbitral award was treated as genuine where both parties accepted the award and their subsequent conduct and assessment records consistently reflected the transaction; the resulting interest income was therefore not taxable in the assessee&#039;s hands. The same approach was applied to the sub-partnership: the deed was executed, acted upon, and supported by accounting entries and returns in the beneficiary&#039;s own assessment, showing a real profit-sharing arrangement rather than a device to divert income. On those facts, the additions based on alleged sham transfer and sham sub-partnership were unsustainable and had to be deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 May 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:13:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (5) TMI 59 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67704</link>
      <description>A transfer credited through book entries pursuant to a binding arbitral award was treated as genuine where both parties accepted the award and their subsequent conduct and assessment records consistently reflected the transaction; the resulting interest income was therefore not taxable in the assessee&#039;s hands. The same approach was applied to the sub-partnership: the deed was executed, acted upon, and supported by accounting entries and returns in the beneficiary&#039;s own assessment, showing a real profit-sharing arrangement rather than a device to divert income. On those facts, the additions based on alleged sham transfer and sham sub-partnership were unsustainable and had to be deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 May 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>