Renu T Tharani v. DCIT

184 ITD 565Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2020#19619 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 39section 5(2)substantive assessmentnon application of mindbusiness connectionsection 149(1)kelvinatorlive linkchildassessee in default

Judgments citing Renu T Tharani v. DCIT

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…it was noted that the assessee was a non resident, appeal A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. was disposed off as global income of a non-resident cannot be taxed in India. The decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Renu T Tharani v DCIT [2020] 184 ITD 565 (Mumbai - Trib.) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. On the aspect of reopening, reopening was upheld as Assessee had filed ROI in India as a resident. It was not a case of nonresident. Also the above decision do not rely upon Bombay High decision in Pr.CIT-15 v Binod Kumar Singh (2019) 178 DTR 49 / 264 Taxman 335/ 310 CTR 243 (B…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…it was noted that the assessee was a non resident, appeal A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. was disposed off as global income of a non-resident cannot be taxed in India. The decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Renu T Tharani v DCIT [2020] 184 ITD 565 (Mumbai - Trib.) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. On the aspect of reopening, reopening was upheld as Assessee had filed ROI in India as a resident. It was not a case of nonresident. Also the above decision do not rely upon Bombay High decision in Pr.CIT-15 v Binod Kumar Singh (2019) 178 DTR 49 / 264 Taxman 335/ 310 CTR 243 (B…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…it was noted that the assessee was a non resident, appeal A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. was disposed off as global income of a non-resident cannot be taxed in India. The decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Renu T Tharani v DCIT [2020] 184 ITD 565 (Mumbai - Trib.) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. On the aspect of reopening, reopening was upheld as Assessee had filed ROI in India as a resident. It was not a case of nonresident. Also the above decision do not rely upon Bombay High decision in Pr.CIT-15 v Binod Kumar Singh (2019) 178 DTR 49 / 264 Taxman 335/ 310 CTR 243 (B…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…it was noted that the assessee was a non resident, appeal A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. was disposed off as global income of a non-resident cannot be taxed in India. The decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Renu T Tharani v DCIT [2020] 184 ITD 565 (Mumbai - Trib.) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. On the aspect of reopening, reopening was upheld as Assessee had filed ROI in India as a resident. It was not a case of nonresident. Also the above decision do not rely upon Bombay High decision in Pr.CIT-15 v Binod Kumar Singh (2019) 178 DTR 49 / 264 Taxman 335/ 310 CTR 243 (B…

Renu T Tharani v. DCIT (184 ITD 565) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax