“Section 2(24)(iii)”
The decision most relied on for Section 2(24)(iii) is Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT (263 ITR 143), cited in 181 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 2(24)(iii)
Income derived from letting out property along with incidental use of furniture, fixtures, and common facilities is assessable as 'income from house property' and not 'business income' when the prime object is merely to let out and not to exploit the property as a business asset.
Expenditure incurred towards the purchase of shares is a capital expenditure and therefore, interest expenditure incurred on such purchases is not eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
If the Revenue accepts the Tribunal's decision for earlier years without challenge, it cannot assail the same decision in subsequent years, provided the facts are similar.
For income to be exempt under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, it must be 'actually applied' for charitable or religious purposes; notional expenditure does not qualify. The burden of proving exemption lies with the assessee.
Surplus arising on the sale of agricultural land is exempt from capital gains tax if it does not fall within the definition of 'capital asset' under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
A charitable trust cannot claim depreciation on an asset if its entire cost has already been allowed as a deduction by way of application of income.
Allowing deduction of interest paid by the assessee as business expenditure u/s.37(1) of the Act is not permissible when netting off interest received against interest paid.
The Tribunal treats a corporate guarantee as an international transaction under Section 92B, upholding an Arm's Length Price (ALP) of 0.50% for the guarantee fee.