<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (1) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219911</link>
    <description>The dispute concerns whether amounts received from abroad in a block assessment are taxable or correctly characterised as gifts versus rental income earned outside India. The court applied the residentialstatus sourcing principle: an assertion of Not Ordinarily Resident status does not automatically exclude Section 5 coverage; the assessee must prove income accrued or arose outside India and that no income was derived outside from an Indiacontrolled business or profession. Because the assessee failed to place material proving foreign accrual, the revenue&#039;s characterisation prevailed and taxability was upheld in favour of the revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2026 10:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219911</link>
      <description>The dispute concerns whether amounts received from abroad in a block assessment are taxable or correctly characterised as gifts versus rental income earned outside India. The court applied the residentialstatus sourcing principle: an assertion of Not Ordinarily Resident status does not automatically exclude Section 5 coverage; the assessee must prove income accrued or arose outside India and that no income was derived outside from an Indiacontrolled business or profession. Because the assessee failed to place material proving foreign accrual, the revenue&#039;s characterisation prevailed and taxability was upheld in favour of the revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>