Search Results For: Balasaheb Yevale


PCIT vs. Binod Kumar Singh (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 22, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 26, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 6, 68, 69: Law explained on (i) when an Indian citizen or person of Indian origin can be said to have come on "visit to India" so as to qualify as a "Non Resident" u/s 6(6) r.w. CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2003 & (ii) whether amount found deposited in a foreign bank is taxable in India u/s 68 & 69 if the assessee is a "Not Ordinary Resident"

In that view of the matter, clause (a) of Section 6(1) would not apply. It is true that in absence of clause (b) of Explanation 1 below Section 6(1) of the Act, the assessee would have fulfilled the requirements of clause (c) of Section 6(1). However, as per the explanation, if the assessee comes to a visit in India, the requirement of stay in India in the previous year would be 182 days and not 60 days as contained in clause (c). These facts would demonstrate that the assessee had migrated to a foreign country where he had set up his business interest. He pursued his higher education abroad, engaged himself in various business activities and continued to live there with his family. His whatever travels to India, would be in the nature of visits, unless contrary brought on record

CIT vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 10, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Senior officers of the department summoned and strictures passed for ‘Irresponsible conduct’ of filing an appeal on a point which is admittedly covered against the department by a judgement of the Supreme Court

The department conceded before the Tribunal that the issue in the appeal was covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of the Supreme Court in CIT v/s Tulsyan NEC Ltd 330 ITR 226 (SC). However, despite this, the

Top