2016 (4) TMI 350 - ITAT MUMBAI
Shri Sunil Gavaskar Versus Income Tax Officer
Deduction u/s 80RR - Income derived from profession as a sportsman - Held that - In the facts of the case before us, it is noted that the assessee has derived its income as a result of his agreement with M/s ESPN Star Sports for the services provided by the assessee as a presenter and commentator and other allied activities which have been discussed in the relevant clauses of the agreement. Thus, assignment has been given to the assessee and this role has been performed by him effectively, because of his having been a cricketer of international stature and he was chosen for the skill and knowl ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 703 - ITAT MUMBAI
Assisstant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai Versus Shri Shah Rukh Khan
Deduction deduction u/s 80RR - Held that - As relying on earlier AY 2003-04 15 of the expenses are reasonable and be attributed to earning foreign income from outside India. The AO is directed to compute deduction u/s 80RR of the Act accordingly. The appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed with the above direction. - Decided in favour of assessee - Addition on account of on money paid in respect of acquiring tenancy rights of heritage bungalow - payment made through undisclosed sources - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - We find from the order of AO that during the year the a ....... - .......
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 Revenue. - Restriction of disallowance u/s 57(iii) of the Act - Expenditure claimed against earning of logo money Held that - There was no reason to inte ....... - .......
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 encashment of foreign currency / travelers chaque but in other cases, the certificate should be issued for encashment of foreign currency notes / tra ....... - .......
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, Pepsico Inc and VISA - the assessee in the instant case has declared income from playing cricket as income from other sources on the ground that he is ....... - .......
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 residence in respect of all items the particular filled are not available . - since assessee has been deprived from filing of the papers before us beca ....... - .......
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 of AO and disallowed the deduction ITAT allowed the deduction u/s 80RR Held that - Simply stated, an artist is a person who engages in an activity whi ....... - .......
2008 (4) TMI 339 - ITAT BOMBAY-J
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Versus Ms. Preeti Vyas.
....... - ...... s scope a skilled performer. 14. On a consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the assessee can be said to be an artist and therefore the income in dispute has to be held as eligible for deduction under s. 80RR of the Act. We find no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). The Revenue s appeal is therefore dismissed. 15. In the result appeals by the Revenue are dismissed.
2007 (10) TMI 331 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
A Kaleshwar. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad.
....... - ...... ising from the denial of this deduction have been extensively dealt with by us in our order for assessment year 2000-01 and following our order for that year, we direct the Assessing Officer to grant full deduction under section 80RR, even on books co-authored by the assessee. 27. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 28. Summarising the result of the entire order, all the three appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed.
2006 (11) TMI 360 - ITAT MUMBAI
Amitabh Bachchan Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 13, Mumbai
....... - ...... on KBC programme which we have already reproduced elsewhere in our order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the assessee is an artist while he received the disputed income within the meaning of section 80RR of the Act. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to grant relief of deduction under section 80RR of the Act. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
2004 (10) TMI 262 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
DAVID DHAWAN. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.
....... - ...... not be said not to be entitled to claim under s. 80RR of the Act. The grievance of the assessee is quite justified. 19. In the light of the above discussions, we consider it appropriate to direct the AO to grant deduction under s. 80RR in respect of the said receipt of US 25,000. The assessee shall get the resultant relief. 20. Ground No. 3 thus allowed. 21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above.
2004 (8) TMI 635 - ITAT MUMBAI
Nadeem Akhtar Saifee Versus Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
....... - ...... ng Officer allowed the deduction under section 80RR in earlier and subsequent years as stated by the 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.
....... - ...... of Anjum M.R. Ghaswala was not available. Even the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vinod Khurana has made it very clear that the demand notice specifying the quantum of interest charged under section 234B of the Act was valid. Keeping in view, the latest decision of the Apex Court and our findings in the foregoing paragraphs, we decide this issue in favour of the Department. 35. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
2001 (3) TMI 814 - ITAT MUMBAI
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Anup Jalota
....... - ...... nt year 1987-88. It may be noted that even in this year the assessee has not incurred any expenditure 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.
....... - ...... ht. 6. Before we conclude, we would like to make reference to the Allahabad High Court decision in Brij Raman Das case which was relied upon by the assessee.Their Lordships have clarified that in view of the provisions contained in section 67(2), the nature of the income derived by the firm would retain its character in the hands of the partners as well. 7. In the result, the claim of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observation made above