{"id":90601,"date":"2016-12-06T15:13:04","date_gmt":"2016-12-06T09:43:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=90601"},"modified":"2016-12-29T11:35:38","modified_gmt":"2016-12-29T06:05:38","slug":"exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/","title":{"rendered":"Exemption on \u2018palace\u2019 under Section 10(19A), Income Tax Act cannot be split in two parts, i.e., the one in occupation and the other in possession of the tenant"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: Deciding the question as to whether a former \u2018ruler\u2019 is entitled to get full benefit of the exemption granted to him under Section 10 (19A) of the Income Tax Act 1961 from payment of income-tax or it is confined only to that portion of palace which is in his actual occupation as residence and the rest which is in occupation of the tenant would be subjected to payment of tax, the Court held that the Legislature did not intend to tax portion of the \u201cpalace\u201d by splitting it in parts. Even if the Ruler had let out the portion of his residential palace, yet he would continue to enjoy the exemption in respect of entire palace because it is not possible to split the exemption in two parts, i.e., the one in his occupation and the other in possession of the tenant.<\/p>\n

Interpreting the related provisions, the Court said that in Section 10(19A) of the I.T. Act, the Legislature has used the expression “palace\u201d for considering the grant of exemption to the Ruler whereas on the same subject, the Legislature has used different expression namely “any one building” in Section 5 (iii) of the Wealth Tax Act. No reliance could be placed on Section 5(iii) of the Wealth Tax Act while construing Section 10(19A) for the reason that the language employed in Section 5(iii) is not identical with the language of Section 10(19A) of the I.T. Act. If the Legislature intended to split the Palace in part(s), alike houses for taxing the subject, it would have said so by employing appropriate language in Section 10(19A) of the I.T. Act. Also, Section 23(2) and (3), uses the expression \u201chouse or part of a house\u201d. Such expression does not find place in Section 10(19A) of the I.T. Act. Likewise, there is no such expression in Section 23, specifically dealing with the cases relating to \u201cpalace\u201d.<\/p>\n

In the present case which related to the \u2018Umed Bhawan Palace\u2019 used by the \u2018ruler\u2019 as his official residence and some part of which had been requisitioned to the Defence Ministry, the bench of Ranjan Gogoi and Abhay Manoher Sapre, JJ further said that if two Statutes dealing with the same subject use different language then it is not permissible to apply the language of one Statute to other while interpreting such Statutes. Similarly, once the assessee is able to fulfill the conditions specified in section for claiming exemption under the Act then provisions dealing with grant of exemption should be construed liberally because the exemptions are for the benefit of the assessee. [Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1428<\/a>, decided on 05.12.2016]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: Deciding the question as to whether a former \u2018ruler\u2019 is entitled to get full benefit of the exemption granted to <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121,"featured_media":27341,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[2649,2592,2526,11731,11741],"class_list":["post-90601","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-exemption","tag-Income_Tax","tag-Interpretation","tag-palace","tag-requisition"],"yoast_head":"\nExemption on \u2018palace\u2019 under Section 10(19A), Income Tax Act cannot be split in two parts, i.e., the one in occupation and the other in possession of the tenant | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Exemption on \u2018palace\u2019 under Section 10(19A), Income Tax Act cannot be split in two parts, i.e., the one in occupation and the other in possession of the tenant\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: Deciding the question as to whether a former \u2018ruler\u2019 is entitled to get full benefit of the exemption granted to\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-12-06T09:43:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-29T06:05:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1280\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/\",\"name\":\"Exemption on \u2018palace\u2019 under Section 10(19A), Income Tax Act cannot be split in two parts, i.e., the one in occupation and the other in possession of the tenant | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-12-06T09:43:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-29T06:05:38+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1280},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Exemption on \u2018palace\u2019 under Section 10(19A), Income Tax Act cannot be split in two parts, i.e., the one in occupation and the other in possession of the tenant\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\",\"name\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"caption\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\"},\"description\":\"Senior Associate Editor\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Exemption on \u2018palace\u2019 under Section 10(19A), Income Tax Act cannot be split in two parts, i.e., the one in occupation and the other in possession of the tenant | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Exemption on \u2018palace\u2019 under Section 10(19A), Income Tax Act cannot be split in two parts, i.e., the one in occupation and the other in possession of the tenant","og_description":"Supreme Court: Deciding the question as to whether a former \u2018ruler\u2019 is entitled to get full benefit of the exemption granted to","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-12-06T09:43:04+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-29T06:05:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1280,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Prachi Bhardwaj","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/","name":"Exemption on \u2018palace\u2019 under Section 10(19A), Income Tax Act cannot be split in two parts, i.e., the one in occupation and the other in possession of the tenant | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","datePublished":"2016-12-06T09:43:04+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-29T06:05:38+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","width":1920,"height":1280},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/06\/exemption-on-palace-under-section-1019a-income-tax-act-cannot-be-split-in-two-parts-i-e-the-one-in-occupation-and-the-other-in-possession-of-the-tenant\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Exemption on \u2018palace\u2019 under Section 10(19A), Income Tax Act cannot be split in two parts, i.e., the one in occupation and the other in possession of the tenant"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942","name":"Prachi Bhardwaj","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","caption":"Prachi Bhardwaj"},"description":"Senior Associate Editor","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":171164,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/27\/interest-earned-voluntary-contributions-made-specific-directions-include-contribution-corpus-charitable-organization-held-exempted-income-tax\/","url_meta":{"origin":90601,"position":0},"title":"Interest earned on voluntary contributions made with specific directions to include contribution in corpus of charitable organization held to be exempted from income tax","author":"Saba","date":"November 27, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Antony Dominic and Dama Seshadri Naidu, JJ. heard appeals dealing with the issue as to whether interest accrued from donations received by a charitable institution are taxable or not. The respondent-assessee, a charitable institution, entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":281628,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/14\/old-settlers-sikkimese-income-tax-exemption-section-1026aaa-uncostitutional-shah-nagarathna-supreme-court-legal-updates-research-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":90601,"position":1},"title":"They are all Sikkimese! All old settlers entitled to the exemption under Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 14, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"While MR Shah, J, has struck down the definition of \u201cSikkimese\u201d in Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Nagarathna, J, has called for saving the Explanation to Section 10(26AAA) and has created a stopgap \u2018sub-clause (iv)\u2019 till the Union of India makes the requisite amendment to the provision.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/They-are-all-Sikkimese-All-old-settlers-entitled-to-the-exemption-under-Section-1026AAA-of-the-Income-Tax-Act-Supreme-Court.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":354549,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/itat-rejects-congress-party-tax-exemption-appeal-rs-199-15-crores\/","url_meta":{"origin":90601,"position":2},"title":"Read why ITAT rejected Congress Party\u2019s appeal for exemption of Rs 199.15 Crores due to delay in filing ITR","author":"Sonali Ahuja","date":"July 25, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The ITAT reiterated that so far as an interpretation of such an exemption provision in a fiscal statute was concerned, a stricter interpretation had to be employed rather than a liberal one.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Congress party's tax exemption appeal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Congress-partys-tax-exemption-appeal.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Congress-partys-tax-exemption-appeal.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Congress-partys-tax-exemption-appeal.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Congress-partys-tax-exemption-appeal.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":270380,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/20\/income-tax-twin-condition-section-10b-furnishing-declaration-within-time-limit-mandatory-exemption-relief-to-newly-established-hundred-persent-export-oriented-undertakings-supreme-court-legal-research\/","url_meta":{"origin":90601,"position":3},"title":"Twin conditions of furnishing declaration within time limit “mandatory” for exemption relief under Section 10B (8) of IT Act: Supreme Court\u00a0","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"July 20, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court and ITAT committed a \"grave error\" in holding that the requirement of furnishing a declaration under Section 10B (8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) is mandatory, but the time limit within which the declaration is to be filed is not mandatory but is directory.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Twin-conditions-of-furnishing-declaration-within-time-limit-mandatory-for-exemption-relief-under-Section-10B-8-of-Income-Tax-Act.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Twin-conditions-of-furnishing-declaration-within-time-limit-mandatory-for-exemption-relief-under-Section-10B-8-of-Income-Tax-Act.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Twin-conditions-of-furnishing-declaration-within-time-limit-mandatory-for-exemption-relief-under-Section-10B-8-of-Income-Tax-Act.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Twin-conditions-of-furnishing-declaration-within-time-limit-mandatory-for-exemption-relief-under-Section-10B-8-of-Income-Tax-Act.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Twin-conditions-of-furnishing-declaration-within-time-limit-mandatory-for-exemption-relief-under-Section-10B-8-of-Income-Tax-Act.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":208505,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/21\/pak-sc-oxford-university-press-entitled-to-tax-exemption-under-clause-86-of-income-tax-ordinance-holds-judgment-of-sc-of-india-in-oup-india-case-wrong\/","url_meta":{"origin":90601,"position":4},"title":"Pak SC | OUP (Pakistan) entitled to tax exemption under Cl. 86 of Income Tax Ordinance; holds judgment by SC of India in OUP India case wrong","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 21, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of Pakistan: The Three-Judge Bench of Umar Ata Bandial, Munib Akhtar and Yahya Afridi, JJ. set aside the judgment of High Court of Sindh, Karachi holding that the assessee Oxford University Press (OUP) was not entitled to tax exemption. The present appeal arose under the Income Tax Ordinance,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/supreme_court_of_jpakistan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/supreme_court_of_jpakistan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/supreme_court_of_jpakistan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/supreme_court_of_jpakistan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/supreme_court_of_jpakistan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281633,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/14\/proviso-section-1026aaa-income-tax-act-unconstitutional-sikkimese-women-marrying-non-sikkimese-men-after-april-2008-cant-be-denied-tax-emeption-supreme-court-shah-nagarathna-legal-updates-research\/","url_meta":{"origin":90601,"position":5},"title":"Sikkimese women can’t be denied tax exemption merely for marrying non-Sikkimese men after April 2008; SC strikes down Proviso to Section 10(26AAA) of Income Tax Act","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 14, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Noting that there is no disqualification for a Sikkim man, who marries a non-Sikkimese after 01.04.2008, the Supreme Court observed that the discrimination is based on gender.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/Sikkimese-women-cant-be-denied-tax-exemption-merely-for-marrying-non-Sikkimese-men-after-April-2008-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90601","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/121"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=90601"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90601\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/27341"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90601"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90601"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90601"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}