https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6401 Where the statutory conditions for residence under section 4A(a)(iii) were otherwise satisfied, the taxpayer bore the burden of proving that presence in India during the relevant year was only occasional or casual; on the record, no such evidence was produced, so resident-but-not-ordinarily-resident status was not established. The taxpayer also had the burden of proving that a remittance from Burma represented capital and not accrued profits; in the absence of account books, satisfactory explanation, or reliable supporting material, the remittance was not shown to be capital in nature. The assessment was therefore sustained on both issues. en-us Tue, 06 Feb 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Jan 2026 12:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6401 Where the statutory conditions for residence under section 4A(a)(iii) were otherwise satisfied, the taxpayer bore the burden of proving that presence in India during the relevant year was only occasional or casual; on the record, no such evidence was produced, so resident-but-not-ordinarily-resident status was not established. The taxpayer also had the burden of proving that a remittance from Burma represented capital and not accrued profits; in the absence of account books, satisfactory explanation, or reliable supporting material, the remittance was not shown to be capital in nature. The assessment was therefore sustained on both issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Feb 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6401