Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing K.Ramullan vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin on 9 August, 2000

Ito vs K. Ramullan on 27 April, 2001

9. Shri K.A. Gopinathan, senior Departmental Representative, was fair enough to concede before us that the revenue has no case as far as the residential status of the late assessee was concerned. He stated that even though the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. K. Ramullan (1997) 226 ITR 265 (Ker) had decided against the late assessee, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the Kerala High Court and held that the late assessee has to be treated as a person resident outside India as reported in K. Ramullan v. CIT JT 2000 (8) SC 593. In view of the above, the senior Departmental Representative submitted that he is not pressing the ground relating to the residential status of the late assessee. But, he objected to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue of "subject of the gift". The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in not appreciating the true nature of the gifts made by the late assessee to his relatives. He submitted that even admitting that the late assessee was a person resident outside India, still he was not entitled to claim exemption contemplated under section 5(1)(iib) of the GT Act. He also submitted that even though the money necessary for the purchase of the Mangalore property was withdrawn from the bank accounts of the late assessee including his NRE accounts, those monies were not directly gifted to his wife and children. Those monies were directly paid to the sellers of Mangalore property by way of cheques and demand drafts. By paying money to the sellers of Mangalore property, the late assessee purchased the said property and got it registered in his name as well as in the names of his wife and children and son-in-law as co-owners. If the consequences of these facts are closely examined, the Departmental Representative submitted that one could find that what the late assessee had gifted to his relatives is not the money standing to his credit in his NRE account but a share in the property in K.R. Commercial Complex at Mangalore. The assessee had actually gifted shares in the immovable property purchased by him and such gifts were not exempt from the levy of gift-tax, and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim exemption provided in section (5)(1)(iib) of the GT Act. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that exemption from the levy of gift-tax would be available only when a person resident outside India makes any gift out of the money standing to his credit in an NRE account in any bank in India. Here in this case, even though the assessee could be considered as a person resident outside India, what he had gifted was not money standing to his credit in his NRE accounts but shares in an immovable property purchased at Mangalore.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Basant Kumar Sharma vs Govt. Of India & Ors. on 7 February, 2013

38. Thus, in my view, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Ramullan (supra) would be distinguishable on facts. The judgment emphasizes that in construing the word „stay‟, in a pari materia provision, one has to bear in mind that it does not denote a "short" or "casual" stay. It would have to be a "stay" for taking up employment or, carrying on business or, vocation or with the intention of remaining in India for an uncertain period. In the said case, the appellant, who was a person of Indian origin, had settled in Malaysia, since 1941. The appellant in that case had acquired Malaysian citizenship. His wife and children were residing in India, who owned agricultural land in India. The appellant had visited India in two assessment years for the purpose of medical treatment, for which period, he had stayed with his wife. It is in the context of these facts that the Supreme Court held that the appellant could not be treated as one who was resident in India, during the relevant period.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document
1