Mumbai: Just mentioning the name of a person in the form of the opening of a Foreign Bank account does not mean that such individuals are profitable owners of bank accounts, according to the recent orders that are passed by Delhi’s bench from the income tax impact court (it in).
A I-T officer has held that Jatinder Mehra, who has ‘opened’ this bank account, has not revealed that foreign assets in the return of the tax and strict provisions of the actions of black money will apply.
Thus, he tried to impose Rs 5.7 Crore tax (into funds in this account) in the hands of Mehra.
However, itat observed that Mehra had submitted a written statement by revealing the full details of bank account ownership.
Based on the solitary facts of the name mentioned in the form of opening bank accounts and a lack of other evidence related to ownership or beneficial ownership of a account like that, the amount cannot be taxed in India in the hands of Mehra, ruling itat.
In this case, a series of complicated facts are involved.
The name Mehra along with the detail of the passport is in the opening form of a Singapore Bank account.
However, this account belongs to a foreign company – Watergate advisor, who is members of the British Virgin Islands Tax Heaven.
Mehra’s son, an Indian non-resident since 1998, is the holder of the Director and Sol Company.
Under the tax law, foreign income held by non-residents cannot be taxed in India.
It all started when the search was made in the case of Rakesh Agarwal Group, Baroda, and details of the six trust companies were revealed, one of which was related to this case that was heard by itat.
In April 2005, a Trust Repolatal Based on Cayman Islands was completed by Mehra, and the beneficiaries of this belief were two sons and grandchildren.
The trust certificate was revoked in December 2011 and the trust fund (Rs 5.7 Crore, if converted to India Rupee) was transferred to a Singapore bank account.
This is the number of this I-T officer trying to impose taxes in the hands of Mehra, by applying the provisions of the Black Money.
At the first level of appeal, the appeal of the commissioners has decided to support the taxpayer.
But the I-T department appealed with the Tax Court.
Itat observed that, in response to the questions raised by I-T officers, Mehra had proposed that he did not even have a copy of the trust certificate.
His son, to show respect and respect his father, wanted him to become a nominal settler of trust, without having to invest, contribute, or resolve the amount of trust.
Based on all facts, because the I-T department cannot provide evidence that Mehra is the owner or owner of the benefits of the number lying in a Singapore bank account, ITAT decided to support the taxpayer.