Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6361 to 6380 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
An individual's residential status for AY 2020-21 was determined under s.6(1)(c) as the individual exceeded both thresholds (≥365 days in preceding four years and ≥60 days in the relevant year), and the relaxation to 182 days under Explanation 1(a)/(b) was held inapplicable because it is confined to specified cases (leaving India or non-residents "being outside India") and cannot be extended to ordinary visits; accordingly, the individual was held resident in India. Applying Article 4 India-Singapore DTAA, the "permanent home/centre of vital interests" and habitual abode factors showed closer economic ties with India, and nationality also supported India; treaty tie-breaker therefore treated the individual as India resident. Objection to jurisdiction based on s.143(2) notice issuance was rejected due to participation in assessment proceedings. - ITAT
An individual's residential status for AY 2020-21 was determined under s.6(1)(c) as the individual exceeded both thresholds (≥365 days in preceding four years and ≥60 days in the relevant year), and the relaxation to 182 days under Explanation 1(a)/(b) was held inapplicable because it is confined to specified cases (leaving India or non-residents "being outside India") and cannot be extended to ordinary visits; accordingly, the individual was held resident in India. Applying Article 4 India-Singapore DTAA, the "permanent home/centre of vital interests" and habitual abode factors showed closer economic ties with India, and nationality also supported India; treaty tie-breaker therefore treated the individual as India resident. Objection to jurisdiction based on s.143(2) notice issuance was rejected due to participation in assessment proceedings. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
