Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACJ, SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax – Appellant
Versus
Shri Nishant Kanodia – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts concerning the assessee and residential status arguments. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of residential status based on employment versus investment. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. discussion on legal precedents impacting the case. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. final conclusion dismissing the appeal and cross-objection. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
ORDER
PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.
The present appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28/03/2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–53, Mumbai, [―learned CIT(A)‖], for the assessment year 2013–14.
ITA no.2155/Mum./2023
Revenue’s appeal – A.Y. 2013–14
2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:–
―1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in interpreting the provisions of section 9A of the Immigration Act of Mauritius relating to Occupation permit which allows assessee to stay and work in Mauritius as an investor not an employee.?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
