Smt. Susila Ramasamy v. ACIT, Central Circle

8 ITR (Trib) 18Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#21397 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 5(2)share capital and share premiumsource of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorsection 250(4)borrowed satisfactionadmission of additional evidenceshare application moneytangible materialrule 46anon-resident

Judgments citing Smt. Susila Ramasamy v. ACIT, Central Circle

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…whose origin of source can be located in India. Therefore, the provisions of section 68 or 69, in our opinion, have limited application in the case of nonresident." 18. Likewise, in the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy V. ACIT, Central Circle – II(2), Chennai [008 ITR (Trib) 18 (Chennai)], Chennai Bench has held as under: "A non-resident person having money in foreign country could not be called upon to pay income tax on that money in India. The reason is obvious because in respect of that money it will not be possible for the AO to say it was either received by him in India, or it was deemed to be received by him…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…whose origin of source can be located in India. Therefore, the provisions of section 68 or 69, in our opinion, have limited application in the case of nonresident." 18. Likewise, in the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy V. ACIT, Central Circle – II(2), Chennai [008 ITR (Trib) 18 (Chennai)], Chennai Bench has held as under: "A non-resident person having money in foreign country could not be called upon to pay income tax on that money in India. The reason is obvious because in respect of that money it will not be possible for the AO to say it was either received by him in India, or it was deemed to be received by him…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…whose origin of source can be located in India. Therefore, the provisions of section 68 or 69, in our opinion, have limited application in the case of nonresident." 18. Likewise, in the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy V. ACIT, Central Circle – II(2), Chennai [008 ITR (Trib) 18 (Chennai)], Chennai Bench has held as under: "A non-resident person having money in foreign country could not be called upon to pay income tax on that money in India. The reason is obvious because in respect of that money it will not be possible for the AO to say it was either received by him in India, or it was deemed to be received by him…

ACIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhusudan Rao Lagadapati, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 449/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…hose origin of source can be located in India. Therefore, the provisions of section 68 or 69, in our opinion, have limited application in the case of non- resident." 18. Likewise, in the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy V. ACIT, Central Circle -II(2), Chennai [008 ITR (Trib) 18 (Chennai)], Chennai Bench has held as under: "A non-resident person having money in foreign country could not be called upon to pay income tax on that money in India. The reason is obvious because in respect of that money it will not be possible for the AO to say it was either received by him in India, or it was deemed to be received by him…

Smt. Susila Ramasamy v. ACIT, Central Circle (8 ITR (Trib) 18) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax