<?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>2025 (6) TMI 1062 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772949</link>
    <description>HC dismissed revision petition challenging denial of exemption under Section 10(26) of Income Tax Act. Petitioner claimed income from conducting religious tours to Syria, Iran and Iraq for Ladakh residents. Court upheld concurrent findings of Assessing Authority and Principal Commissioner that petitioner conducted business from Mumbai, not Ladakh, as evidenced by PAN address and brother&#039;s similar business operations from same Mumbai address. Petitioner failed to satisfy three conditions under Section 10(26) for exemption. HC declined to interfere with concurrent factual findings of two quasi-judicial authorities under Article 226.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:38:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=829231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1062 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772949</link>
      <description>HC dismissed revision petition challenging denial of exemption under Section 10(26) of Income Tax Act. Petitioner claimed income from conducting religious tours to Syria, Iran and Iraq for Ladakh residents. Court upheld concurrent findings of Assessing Authority and Principal Commissioner that petitioner conducted business from Mumbai, not Ladakh, as evidenced by PAN address and brother&#039;s similar business operations from same Mumbai address. Petitioner failed to satisfy three conditions under Section 10(26) for exemption. HC declined to interfere with concurrent factual findings of two quasi-judicial authorities under Article 226.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772949</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>