https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334100 The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings that the agreement between the parties was a joint venture, not a sub-contract. It was established that the income was an application of income and not diverted by overriding title. As no expenditure was claimed, Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act was deemed inapplicable. The Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that taxing the income received by the other party would lead to double taxation, which is impermissible. No costs were awarded in the disposition of the appeals. en-us Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Feb 2017 16:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334100 The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings that the agreement between the parties was a joint venture, not a sub-contract. It was established that the income was an application of income and not diverted by overriding title. As no expenditure was claimed, Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act was deemed inapplicable. The Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that taxing the income received by the other party would lead to double taxation, which is impermissible. No costs were awarded in the disposition of the appeals. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334100