<?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>Court Rules on AOP Income Assessment for Co-owners &amp; Denies Depreciation Claim on Plinth Rental Income.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83445</link>
    <description>Two key issues: 1) Assessment of rental income received by co-owners as income of an Association of Persons (AOP), and 2) Treatment of income from letting out a plinth as income from house property. Regarding the first issue, the court held that the rental income should be assessed as AOP income as the co-owners jointly received rent, maintained a single account, and raised loans collectively. The court relied on the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in ITO vs Ch. Atchaiah, which allowed assessing AOP income even if members were previously assessed individually. On the second issue, the court ruled that a plinth cannot be treated as a building for the purpose of Section 26 of the Act. A plinth is merely the floor level above the ground, and construc.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:51 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=779533" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Rules on AOP Income Assessment for Co-owners &amp; Denies Depreciation Claim on Plinth Rental Income.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83445</link>
      <description>Two key issues: 1) Assessment of rental income received by co-owners as income of an Association of Persons (AOP), and 2) Treatment of income from letting out a plinth as income from house property. Regarding the first issue, the court held that the rental income should be assessed as AOP income as the co-owners jointly received rent, maintained a single account, and raised loans collectively. The court relied on the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in ITO vs Ch. Atchaiah, which allowed assessing AOP income even if members were previously assessed individually. On the second issue, the court ruled that a plinth cannot be treated as a building for the purpose of Section 26 of the Act. A plinth is merely the floor level above the ground, and construc.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:51 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>