Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 3007 2009 SLD 3007 (2009) 316 ITR 56
Karnataka High Court
I.T. APPEAL. No. 175 OF 2003 JANUARY 4, 2008
DEEPAK VERMA AND K. L. MANJUNATH, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

V. K. Subramanian

v.

Assistant Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 115H of Income-tax Act, 1961 - Benefit of scheme available in certain cases even after non-resident becomes resident Where assessee non-resident who had become resident and brought foreign exchange and had invested same in a bank in fixed deposit, had converted same into Indian rupee and was earning interest on such investment made in bank, assessee having filed a declaration as required under law after having become a resident, was not entitled to contend that amount invested by him in fixed deposit still had to be considered as an asset brought from abroad [In favour of revenue] [Assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92] V.K. Subramanian v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 56 (Kar.) The assessee as a doctor was a non-resident and thereafter he returned to India and he brought his earnings earned abroad and invested the same in a bank and was getting interest from such investment as NRI. He was also getting the benefit, namely, the concessional rate of income-tax at 21 per cent under section 115E. Thereafter, he filed a declaration to change his status from NRI to resident. The assessee, after filing such declaration, claimed certain reliefs under section 115H. The relief claimed by the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Held that the assessee non-resident, who had become resident, who brought the foreign exchange and had invested the same in a bank in fixed deposit, had converted the same into Indian rupee and was earning interest on such investment made in the bank. The assessee having filed a declaration as required under law after having become a resident, was not entitled to contend that the amount invested by him in fixed deposit still had to be considered as an asset brought from abroad. S. Parthasarathy for the Appellant. M.V. Seshachala for the Respondent. JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.-Heard. 2. This appeal is by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in case No. I. T. A. Nos. 1137 to 1140/Bang/1993 dated January 31, 2003, arising on the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant having become a 'resident' for income-tax…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492