<?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>1996 (3) TMI 560 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS , NEW DELHI)]</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283466</link>
    <description>Foreign retirement corpus brought into India was not taxable merely because it was remitted later, since the amounts had accrued while the applicant was non-resident and retained their character as corpus. Interest earned on the Indian non-repatriable rupee account was taxable in the applicant&#039;s hands once he became resident, because income received through a custodian is assessable according to the beneficial owner&#039;s status. The Authority also held that withdrawals from the retirement account did not constitute taxable income in India. It declined to rule on the proposed gift-tax consequences, holding that its advance-ruling jurisdiction under the Income-tax Act did not extend to that separate enactment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:45:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 560 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS , NEW DELHI)]</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283466</link>
      <description>Foreign retirement corpus brought into India was not taxable merely because it was remitted later, since the amounts had accrued while the applicant was non-resident and retained their character as corpus. Interest earned on the Indian non-repatriable rupee account was taxable in the applicant&#039;s hands once he became resident, because income received through a custodian is assessable according to the beneficial owner&#039;s status. The Authority also held that withdrawals from the retirement account did not constitute taxable income in India. It declined to rule on the proposed gift-tax consequences, holding that its advance-ruling jurisdiction under the Income-tax Act did not extend to that separate enactment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>