<?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>2015 (5) TMI 578 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259704</link>
    <description>Receipts described as commission-linked contributions and grants under the U.P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 were examined for their character under section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The document notes that the amounts were stated to be earmarked for statutory purposes such as development works and road construction, with no independent right in the recipient to treat them as its own income or deploy them freely. It also records that provisions of the 1953 Act and rules 8, 49 and 49A were relied on to support restricted use, and that new grounds raised by the assessee required fresh consideration because they had not been examined by the lower authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 May 2015 12:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385335" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 578 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259704</link>
      <description>Receipts described as commission-linked contributions and grants under the U.P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 were examined for their character under section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The document notes that the amounts were stated to be earmarked for statutory purposes such as development works and road construction, with no independent right in the recipient to treat them as its own income or deploy them freely. It also records that provisions of the 1953 Act and rules 8, 49 and 49A were relied on to support restricted use, and that new grounds raised by the assessee required fresh consideration because they had not been examined by the lower authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>