Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The principal issue was residential status under s.6(1) Explanation 1(b) for AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20. Applying the exclusion of day of arrival (per Manoj Kumar Reddy) the assessee's stays were under 182 days (180, 173, 175), so he did not meet the 182-day threshold; accordingly he is not a resident for those years - outcome: non-resident. Separately, under Explanation (e) to s.115C the assessee was outside India for employment, reinforcing non-resident status. The tribunal allowed the taxpayer's grounds and held him non-resident for the three assessment years. - ITAT
The principal issue was residential status under s.6(1) Explanation 1(b) for AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20. Applying the exclusion of day of arrival (per Manoj Kumar Reddy) the assessee's stays were under 182 days (180, 173, 175), so he did not meet the 182-day threshold; accordingly he is not a resident for those years - outcome: non-resident. Separately, under Explanation (e) to s.115C the assessee was outside India for employment, reinforcing non-resident status. The tribunal allowed the taxpayer's grounds and held him non-resident for the three assessment years. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.