<?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>High Court Rules Rental Income as Business Income for Property Leasing Firm, Aligning with Precedents.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81466</link>
    <description>The case pertains to the correct head of income for rental income receipts, whether assessable under &#039;Income From House Property&#039; or &#039;Income from Business&#039;. The key points are: The assessee&#039;s sole business was leasing properties, without any construction projects or major sales since incorporation. The Assessing Officer (AO) erroneously presumed that no prudent person would wait for over 10-20 years after receiving twice the cost of the building. The AO&#039;s assumption that the absence of legal proceedings by intending purchasers impacts tax levy is unfounded. The First Appellate Authority rightly treated the income as business income, given the assessee&#039;s sole business of renting buildings. Based on the AO&#039;s factual findings, the income canno.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2024 07:53:02 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2024 07:53:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=768768" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>High Court Rules Rental Income as Business Income for Property Leasing Firm, Aligning with Precedents.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81466</link>
      <description>The case pertains to the correct head of income for rental income receipts, whether assessable under &#039;Income From House Property&#039; or &#039;Income from Business&#039;. The key points are: The assessee&#039;s sole business was leasing properties, without any construction projects or major sales since incorporation. The Assessing Officer (AO) erroneously presumed that no prudent person would wait for over 10-20 years after receiving twice the cost of the building. The AO&#039;s assumption that the absence of legal proceedings by intending purchasers impacts tax levy is unfounded. The First Appellate Authority rightly treated the income as business income, given the assessee&#039;s sole business of renting buildings. Based on the AO&#039;s factual findings, the income canno.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2024 07:53:02 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>