2014 (2) TMI 258 - ITAT HYDERABAD
DCIT, Central Circle-4, Hyderabad Versus Mr. Mohd. Azharuddin
Claim of exemption on award money Allowance of expenditure Held that - The incomes are offered under the head income from business or profession , that does not mean that assessee is a professional player - assessee is playing for the country under the aegis of BCCI and he has no individual professional involvement to play in any match as he wish - the findings of the CIT(A) upheld that assessee is not a professional cricketer Decided against Rev.....
2012 (10) TMI 18 - ITAT MUMBAI
Mr. Sanjeev M. Kapoor Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward–11(1) (2), Mumbai
Deduction u/s 80RR - assessee is an individual and is a playback singer - remuneration in foreign currency - denial of deduction on ground that two encashment certificates from Wallstreet Finance Ltd. were not in Form 10H - Held that - It is observed that RBI, vide its letter dated 31.10.1998 and again vide letter dated 16.06.2006, clarified that in the case of salaries of shipping crew members, the certificate is to be issued in Form 10H against.....
2011 (5) TMI 20 - ITAT MUMBAI
Sachin R. Tendulkar Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 193
Deduction u/s 80RR - Business income or other sources - the assessee derived income from salary, income from other sources as a cricketer and income from modelling/sponsorships shown as income from business/profession - the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 19,92,27,085/- as gross receipts from sports sponsorship and advertisements which included an amount of Rs. 5,92,31,211/- received in convertible foreign exchange from ESPN Star Sports, P.....
2010 (10) TMI 196 - ITAT, MUMBAI
Dy. CIT Versus Salman Khan
Deduction u/s 80RR - Expenditure u/s 37(1) - personal expenditure - assessee had claimed deduction under section.80RR at the rate of 30 per cent on professional remuneration of Rs. 1,26,39,773 for doing shows abroad - Held that - Assessing Officer has clearly noted that assessee has filed a letter from Shri Vijay Taneja and has not submitted any such agreements. Further in the Form-10H Annexed with the assessment order in the column of place of r.....
2010 (6) TMI 53 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of Income Tax-12 Versus M/s. Tarun R. Tahiliani
Design Fees Deduction u/s 80RR - The deduction was claimed in respect of the design fees received by the assessee from persons not resident in India in convertible foreign exchange. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee, holding that the assessee was not an author, or a playwright, artist, musician, actor or sportsman and hence did not fall within one of the categories to whom a deduction can be allowed CIT confirmed the order .....
2008 (4) TMI 339 - ITAT BOMBAY-J
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Versus Ms. Preeti Vyas.
Professional Income From Foreign Sources
2007 (10) TMI 331 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
A Kaleshwar. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad.
Income Escaping Assessment
2006 (11) TMI 360 - ITAT MUMBAI
Amitabh Bachchan Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 13, Mumbai
2004 (10) TMI 262 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
DAVID DHAWAN. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.
Business income, Deductions
2004 (8) TMI 635 - ITAT MUMBAI
Nadeem Akhtar Saifee Versus Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
...... assessee. At any rate, this contention was not raised by the assessee before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) is at liberty to examine this aspect also. The CIT(A) will readjudicate the issue involved in this appeal afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to both the sides. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
2002 (5) TMI 201 - ITAT BOMBAY-F
Harsha Bhogle. Versus Assessing Officer.
Deductions, Professional Income
2001 (3) TMI 814 - ITAT MUMBAI
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Anup Jalota
......e and only net income was received in foreign exchange. Therefore, consistent with the view taken by the ITAT in the preceding year, the claim of the assessee deserves to be accepted. We, therefore, hold that there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
1992 (5) TMI 61 - ITAT DELHI-C
Prem Prakash. Versus Income-Tax Officer.
A Firm, Foreign Currency, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act
1991 (12) TMI 87 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
FIRST INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus LATA MANGESHKAR
......t that any such expenses could be adjusted against receipts on which s. 80RR is claimed. On scrutiny of the papers filed on record and after considering the submissions made, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) is correct and does not call for any interference. The same is hereby confirmed. 8. The appeal by the Department is dismissed.
1976 (11) TMI 109 - ITAT MADRAS-B
INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus K. SRINIVASACHARYA.
......ofession. The conditions laid down in s. 80RR are satisfied. In my view in the order passed on 29th Dec, 1970 for the asst. yr. 1970-71 and which was followed for the subsequent two asst. yr.s there is no mistake apparent from the record. 6. For the foregoing reasons, I uphold the order of the AAC. The appeals of the Revenue fail and are dismissed.