Ifthikar Karuppamveetil Abdul Rahman vs. The Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Ifthikar Karuppamveetil Abdul Rahman, has appealed against the assessment order of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2018-2019. The assessee argues that the inclusion of non-residents within the purview of 'eligible assessee' under Section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1971, which became effective from 01.04.2020, should not be applied retrospectively to the assessment year 2018-2019. The assessee contends that the Assessing Officer should not have proceeded against him under Section 144C of the Act for the assessment year 2018-2019, as non-residents were not covered under Section 144C as on 01.04.2018. The assessee further argues that the addition of Rs.17,50,000/- being the premium paid component of the Life Insurance Policy is erroneous and that the Hon'ble DRP erred in not considering the report called for from the Assessing Officer in its true perspective. The assessee also claims that the Assessing Officer erred in taxing the income of the appellant as income from other sources under section 56 of the Act and applying the deduction available under section 57(iii) of the Act.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the non-resident assessee can be covered under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2018-2019?
• 2. Whether the addition of Rs.17,50,000/- being the premium paid component of the Life Insurance Policy is erroneous?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• M/s. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. The DCIT, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai

• Sri.Ignatius Mathew Kalapurakkal v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

  Cochin bench

• Turf Estate JV Vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 20(3), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. and Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (International taxation) - 2(3)(1) Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2022-23Allowed

• Shri Avinash Kondaji Benke Vs. ITO

  Mumbai bench

• Hero Fincop Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1)