<?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>2019 (12) TMI 268 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389385</link>
    <description>The court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision that the amount received by the appellant was a revenue receipt, not a capital receipt. The appellant&#039;s departure from the institution after new committee members were elected was crucial in determining this classification. The absence of evidence supporting a lifetime appointment as Secretary further supported this finding. The Assessing Officer&#039;s order was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed without costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=596478" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 268 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389385</link>
      <description>The court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision that the amount received by the appellant was a revenue receipt, not a capital receipt. The appellant&#039;s departure from the institution after new committee members were elected was crucial in determining this classification. The absence of evidence supporting a lifetime appointment as Secretary further supported this finding. The Assessing Officer&#039;s order was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed without costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389385</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>