https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26600 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the rental income from the portion of the palace not in the occupation of the Ruler was taxable. The court emphasized the necessity of actual possession by the Ruler for claiming exemption under section 10(19A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since parts of the palace were rented out, the Ruler could not be considered in occupation of the entire palace, leading to the inclusion of rental income in the total income. The judgment underscored the importance of the Ruler's physical control and possession over the palace for tax exemption eligibility. en-us Mon, 22 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:46:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26600 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the rental income from the portion of the palace not in the occupation of the Ruler was taxable. The court emphasized the necessity of actual possession by the Ruler for claiming exemption under section 10(19A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since parts of the palace were rented out, the Ruler could not be considered in occupation of the entire palace, leading to the inclusion of rental income in the total income. The judgment underscored the importance of the Ruler's physical control and possession over the palace for tax exemption eligibility. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26600