Smt. Susila Ramasamy v. ACIT (37 SOT 146)

HEMANT GORDHANBHAI PATEL,NADIAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN., VADODARA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1684/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR

…onsidered as unaccounted income of assessee under sections 68 and 69. Where assessee transferred his own fund from outside of India, said fund could not represent his unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Act. 14. In the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy 37 SOT 146 (Chennai), the ITAT held that in case of remittances by way of banking channel onus on assessee under Section 69 stands discharged, and, therefore, section 5(2)(b) does not apply. 15. In view of the instant facts and the judicial precedents cited, above we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law in confirming the addi…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GREAMS ROAD INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. K ANSARI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1358/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1357/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1358/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito Mr. K. Ansari बनाम/ #6/1, Parameshwari Nagar International Taxation Ward -1(1) Vs. 4Th Street, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai-6. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akhpa-5381-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca)-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA)-Ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…tus is that of a non-resident. Therefore, the provisions of Sec.68 would not be attracted to the funds transferred to an NRE account in India which has originated from assessee’s account held abroad. The Chennai Tribunal in the case of Smt. Susila Ramasawamy (37 SOT 146) held that where the assessee brought money into India through banking channels, then it could be said that the onus as required u/s 69 was discharged by the assessee and therefore, the receipts were not taxable u/s 5(2)(b). Similar is the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal in Mr. Madhusudan Rao (57 Taxmann.com 262) wherein it has been held that provi…

INCOME TAX OFFICER , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT GREAMS ROAD vs. K ANSARI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1357/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1357/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1358/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito Mr. K. Ansari बनाम/ #6/1, Parameshwari Nagar International Taxation Ward -1(1) Vs. 4Th Street, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai-6. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akhpa-5381-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca)-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA)-Ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…tus is that of a non-resident. Therefore, the provisions of Sec.68 would not be attracted to the funds transferred to an NRE account in India which has originated from assessee’s account held abroad. The Chennai Tribunal in the case of Smt. Susila Ramasawamy (37 SOT 146) held that where the assessee brought money into India through banking channels, then it could be said that the onus as required u/s 69 was discharged by the assessee and therefore, the receipts were not taxable u/s 5(2)(b). Similar is the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal in Mr. Madhusudan Rao (57 Taxmann.com 262) wherein it has been held that provi…

ALAN MOSES MOZES ,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INTL. TAXN., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(4)(ii)Section 5(2)Section 6(1)Section 69A

…a non-resident since 25 years, since, no material was brought on record to show that funds were diverted by assessee from India to source deposits found in foreign bank account, impugned additions were unjustified. In the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy v. ACIT 37 SOT 146 (Chennai), the Assessee, a non-resident Indian, had made substantial Non-Resident Non-Repatriable (NRNR), Foreign Currency Non-Resident (FCNR), and NRSB deposits with Indian Bank. She filed return in Form No. 2D showing total income as nil. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order and assessed aforesaid deposits as income of assessee under Se…

SMT. PRATIMABEN V. RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 51/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 148Section 2(30)Section 68Section 69

…nsidered as unaccounted income of assessee under sections 68 and 69. Where assessee transferred his own fund from outside of India, said fund could not represent his unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Act. 14. In the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy 37 SOT 146 (Chennai), the ITAT held that in case of remittances by way of banking channel onus on assessee under Section 69 stands discharged, and, therefore, section 5(2)(b) does not apply. 15. In view of the instant facts and the judicial precedents cited, above we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law in confirming the add…

SHRI VINODKUMAR HIRALAL RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 50/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 148Section 2(30)Section 68Section 69

…nsidered as unaccounted income of assessee under sections 68 and 69. Where assessee transferred his own fund from outside of India, said fund could not represent his unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Act. 14. In the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy 37 SOT 146 (Chennai), the ITAT held that in case of remittances by way of banking channel onus on assessee under Section 69 stands discharged, and, therefore, section 5(2)(b) does not apply. 15. In view of the instant facts and the judicial precedents cited, above we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law in confirming the add…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI ARUN MAHVACHARI RANGACHARI, MUMBAI

In the result revenues appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 677/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 132Section 147Section 148

…NRI cannot be asked to prove source of credit in its overseas account. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance upon the following case laws :-  DCIT Vs. Hemant Mansukhlal Pandya (100 taxmann.com 280) (Mumbai-Tribunal)  Smt. Susila Ramasamy Vs. ACIT (37 SOT 146)(Chennai)  DCIT Vs. Finlay Corporation Ltd. (86 ITD 626)(Delhi) 12. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the additions are based upon findings in search action carried out in the case of Valuable Group on 10.4.2013. That in a related action M/s. DAR Media Pvt. Ltd. was also covered u/s. 132 of the Act on 10.4.2013 and t…