<?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>2016 (9) TMI 149 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331888</link>
    <description>Fringe Benefit Tax could not be levied where the assessee&#039;s only income was agricultural income exempt under section 10(1), because Chapter XII-H had to be read subject to that exemption. The Tribunal held that applying fringe benefit tax on the related expenditure would, in substance, tax income excluded from total income, and the non obstante wording of section 115WA(2) did not override the agricultural income exemption. The addition made on that basis was therefore deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2016 12:23:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 149 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331888</link>
      <description>Fringe Benefit Tax could not be levied where the assessee&#039;s only income was agricultural income exempt under section 10(1), because Chapter XII-H had to be read subject to that exemption. The Tribunal held that applying fringe benefit tax on the related expenditure would, in substance, tax income excluded from total income, and the non obstante wording of section 115WA(2) did not override the agricultural income exemption. The addition made on that basis was therefore deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>