<?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>1983 (5) TMI 78 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67841</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the treatment of interest income accruing to the minor and the undisclosed income credited in the assessee&#039;s account in a firm. The Tribunal ruled that the interest income of the minor was not taxable in the hands of the assessee under section 64 of the IT Act as it was not related to his admission to the partnership. Additionally, the undisclosed income credited in the account was deemed to be the transfer of emerald stones at market value, not cash deposit, and the difference in value was considered as capital gains, not revenue profit, as per the Supreme Court&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:52:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (5) TMI 78 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67841</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the treatment of interest income accruing to the minor and the undisclosed income credited in the assessee&#039;s account in a firm. The Tribunal ruled that the interest income of the minor was not taxable in the hands of the assessee under section 64 of the IT Act as it was not related to his admission to the partnership. Additionally, the undisclosed income credited in the account was deemed to be the transfer of emerald stones at market value, not cash deposit, and the difference in value was considered as capital gains, not revenue profit, as per the Supreme Court&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>