<?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>2014 (4) TMI 739 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246770</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the assessee&#039;s forced stay in India due to passport seizure should be excluded in determining residential status, maintaining him as a non-resident. The addition of share capital by Universal Business Solutions Mauritius in Claridges Pvt. Ltd. was deemed legitimate, while the investment by Palm Technologies Ltd. in Claridges SEZ was upheld on a protective basis. Unexplained cash found by the CBI was upheld, along with investments in Sonali Farms and deposits in Deutsche Bank. Foreign remittance and unexplained jewelry additions were confirmed and deleted, respectively. The assessee&#039;s appeals were partly allowed, emphasizing equitable tax law interpretation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 739 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246770</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the assessee&#039;s forced stay in India due to passport seizure should be excluded in determining residential status, maintaining him as a non-resident. The addition of share capital by Universal Business Solutions Mauritius in Claridges Pvt. Ltd. was deemed legitimate, while the investment by Palm Technologies Ltd. in Claridges SEZ was upheld on a protective basis. Unexplained cash found by the CBI was upheld, along with investments in Sonali Farms and deposits in Deutsche Bank. Foreign remittance and unexplained jewelry additions were confirmed and deleted, respectively. The assessee&#039;s appeals were partly allowed, emphasizing equitable tax law interpretation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>