S. 13 : Denial of exemption-Trust or institution-Investment restrictions-Exemption cannot be denied to entire income-Denial should be confined to amount diverted for benefit of persons mentioned in S. 13. [S. 11, 13(1)(c)(ii), 13(2)]
S. 13 : Denial of exemption-Trust or institution-Investment restrictions-Exemption cannot be denied to entire income-Denial should be confined to amount diverted for benefit of persons mentioned in S. 13. [S. 11, 13(1)(c)(ii), 13(2)]
S. 147:Re assessment – Export oriented undertakings-Instruction of CBDT Dated 9-3-2009 Clarifying that approval granted by Software Technology Parks of India has to be ratified by Board of approvals-Instruction valid.-Writ petition was dismissed . [ S. 10B, 148 , Art , 226 ]
S. 10B : Export oriented undertakings-Computer software-Export of customized electronic data relating to engineering and design-Entitled to exemption. [S. 10BB]
S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Premium paid was for imparting commercial information and knowledge and was royalty both under Act and under DTAA-Premium payment could not be treated as fees for technical services-India-Brazil. [S. 5, 9(1)(vii), Art. 12(3)]
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Income or capital-Sale of Carbon Credits-Capital receipt-No cost of acquisition of production to get entitlement Not assessable under any head of income. [S. 28(i), 56]
S. 147 : Reassessment – Bogus purchases – Information must be reliable and there must be some evidence to believe that purchases are bogus- Reassessment was quashed . [ S.148 ]
S. 147 : Reassessment –Reasons recorded are different than the reasons supplied – Reassessment was quashed. [ S. 148 ]
.
S. 72 : Set off of loss-long term capital loss-Tax planning with in frame work of law is permissible -Long term capital loss is allowed to be set off against long term capital gains. [S. 45]
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Hardship allowance received from the Developer – Capital receipt-Not chargeable to tax. [S. 2(24)(vi)]
S. 69C : unexplained expenditure-Bogus hawala purchases-Third party statement-Opportunity of cross examination was not provided-Payments were through banking channels by way of letter of credit-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition was affirmed-No question of law. [S. 260A]