What is CIT v. Abdul Razzaq authority for?

An assessee not engaged in gainful employment outside India is not considered resident in India if their physical presence abroad is not for specific purposes like tourism, medical treatment, or studies.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Abdul Razzaq?

18 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Abdul Razzaq (337 ITR 350), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Abdul Razzaq come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 6(1)(c), Section 115C, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

CIT v. Abdul Razzaq (337 ITR 350)

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

…loyment on regular basis outside India, we find that it is not the allegation of the AO that the assessee was outside India for the purposes of tourist visit or medical treatment or for studies. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Abdul Razzaq 337 ITR 350 (Kerala) has held as under:- 6. During hearing, learned senior counsel for the revenue has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshminarayan Ram ITA No.1650, 1653 to 1655/Del/2024 Gopal & Son Ltd. v. Government of Hyderabad [1954] 25 ITR 449. We do not think the decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Learned senior counsel…

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1654/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

…loyment on regular basis outside India, we find that it is not the allegation of the AO that the assessee was outside India for the purposes of tourist visit or medical treatment or for studies. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Abdul Razzaq 337 ITR 350 (Kerala) has held as under:- 6. During hearing, learned senior counsel for the revenue has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshminarayan Ram ITA No.1650, 1653 to 1655/Del/2024 Gopal & Son Ltd. v. Government of Hyderabad [1954] 25 ITR 449. We do not think the decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Learned senior counsel…

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1653/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

…loyment on regular basis outside India, we find that it is not the allegation of the AO that the assessee was outside India for the purposes of tourist visit or medical treatment or for studies. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Abdul Razzaq 337 ITR 350 (Kerala) has held as under:- 6. During hearing, learned senior counsel for the revenue has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshminarayan Ram ITA No.1650, 1653 to 1655/Del/2024 Gopal & Son Ltd. v. Government of Hyderabad [1954] 25 ITR 449. We do not think the decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Learned senior counsel…

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1650/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

…loyment on regular basis outside India, we find that it is not the allegation of the AO that the assessee was outside India for the purposes of tourist visit or medical treatment or for studies. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Abdul Razzaq 337 ITR 350 (Kerala) has held as under:- 6. During hearing, learned senior counsel for the revenue has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshminarayan Ram ITA No.1650, 1653 to 1655/Del/2024 Gopal & Son Ltd. v. Government of Hyderabad [1954] 25 ITR 449. We do not think the decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Learned senior counsel…

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

…loyment on regular basis outside India, we find that it is not the allegation of the AO that the assessee was outside India for the purposes of tourist visit or medical treatment or for studies. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Abdul Razzaq 337 ITR 350 (Kerala) has held as under:- 6. During hearing, learned senior counsel for the revenue has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshminarayan Ram ITA No.1650, 1653 to 1655/Del/2024 Gopal & Son Ltd. v. Government of Hyderabad [1954] 25 ITR 449. We do not think the decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Learned senior counsel…

Mitesh Vijay Gulati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int. Tax Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4227/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 6(1)Section 6(1)(c)

…tay outside India for the purpose of employment it is submitted as under: The issue of whether the term 'employment outside India' includes 'doing Business' by the taxpayer, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Kerala HC in CIT v/s Abdul Razak, (2011) 337 ITR 350 (Kerala) wherein the Hon'ble Court while deciding the issue in favour of the taxpayer took into consideration the CBDT circular no 346 dated 30/06/1982 and held that no technical meaning can be assigned to the word 'employment 'used in the Explanation and thus going abroad for the purpose of employment also means going abroad to take up self-empl…

Raghav Agarwalla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, International Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4258/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Raghav Agarwalla, Ito, International Tax Ward 1(1)(1), 13/14, Buckley Court, Room No. 1817, 18Th Floor, Air India Vs. 5 Woodhouse Road, Colaba, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Ahbpa 8174 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal/Akhilesh Deshmukh

Section 1Section 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…e India‖ includes ‖ includes ―doing Business by the taxpayer, came up for ‖ by the taxpayer, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in consideration before the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT v/s O. Abdu CIT v/s O. Abdul Razak, [2011] 337 ITR 350 (Ker.) wherein the Hon'ble Court while , [2011] 337 ITR 350 (Ker.) wherein the Hon'ble Court while , [2011] 337 ITR 350 (Ker.) wherein the Hon'ble Court while deciding the issue in favour of the taxpayer took into consideration the deciding the issue in favour of the taxpayer took into consideration the deciding the issue in favour of the taxpaye…

Shri Jitendra P.Vaghela, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1731/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr.D.R

Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…1 )(a) 31/03/2012 6. Time limit for completion of Assessment U/s 153(1)(b) 31/03/2013 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chhaganlal Suteriya vs. ITO & Anr. reported in [2011] 337 ITR 350 in this regard. Copy of the order was placed before us. 7. Ld. D.R. on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the authorities below stating that the assessee had filed return only on detection of his undisclosed income during survey and therefore had been rightly held to be liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance was pla…

Vijaybhai Dashrathbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2622/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Us: -

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…he conditions of Explanation-3 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled and accordingly, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is liable to be deleted. The assessee placed reliance on the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Chhaganlal S. Suteriya Vs. ITO 337 ITR 350 (Guj) in support of his contention that the conditions enumerated in Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) are cumulative. The assessee further relied on case of National Textile Agriculture vs. CIT 249 ITR 125 (Gujarat) and CIT vs. Jalaram Oils 253 ITR 192 in support of his arguments that burden is always on the Assessing Officer to show that the a…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1217/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…this purpose, reliance was placed on the following decisions for the proposition that the expression "employment outside India" does not mean that an assessee cannot continue to be an employee of some other enti1y in India during that period:- i) Abdul Razak 337 ITR 350 British Gas India Pvt Ltd 287 ITR 462 ii) Zialluall Sheriff Vs ACIT (International Taxation) 316 iii) ITR (AT) 92, 116 TTJ 76 64. It is submitted that the AO has also rejected the appellant's case on the ground that the assessee did not intend to stay permanently outside India and he refers to the fact that the assessee was visiting India very…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1216/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…this purpose, reliance was placed on the following decisions for the proposition that the expression "employment outside India" does not mean that an assessee cannot continue to be an employee of some other enti1y in India during that period:- i) Abdul Razak 337 ITR 350 British Gas India Pvt Ltd 287 ITR 462 ii) Zialluall Sheriff Vs ACIT (International Taxation) 316 iii) ITR (AT) 92, 116 TTJ 76 64. It is submitted that the AO has also rejected the appellant's case on the ground that the assessee did not intend to stay permanently outside India and he refers to the fact that the assessee was visiting India very…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1215/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…this purpose, reliance was placed on the following decisions for the proposition that the expression "employment outside India" does not mean that an assessee cannot continue to be an employee of some other enti1y in India during that period:- i) Abdul Razak 337 ITR 350 British Gas India Pvt Ltd 287 ITR 462 ii) Zialluall Sheriff Vs ACIT (International Taxation) 316 iii) ITR (AT) 92, 116 TTJ 76 64. It is submitted that the AO has also rejected the appellant's case on the ground that the assessee did not intend to stay permanently outside India and he refers to the fact that the assessee was visiting India very…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1214/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…this purpose, reliance was placed on the following decisions for the proposition that the expression "employment outside India" does not mean that an assessee cannot continue to be an employee of some other enti1y in India during that period:- i) Abdul Razak 337 ITR 350 British Gas India Pvt Ltd 287 ITR 462 ii) Zialluall Sheriff Vs ACIT (International Taxation) 316 iii) ITR (AT) 92, 116 TTJ 76 64. It is submitted that the AO has also rejected the appellant's case on the ground that the assessee did not intend to stay permanently outside India and he refers to the fact that the assessee was visiting India very…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1213/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…this purpose, reliance was placed on the following decisions for the proposition that the expression "employment outside India" does not mean that an assessee cannot continue to be an employee of some other enti1y in India during that period:- i) Abdul Razak 337 ITR 350 British Gas India Pvt Ltd 287 ITR 462 ii) Zialluall Sheriff Vs ACIT (International Taxation) 316 iii) ITR (AT) 92, 116 TTJ 76 64. It is submitted that the AO has also rejected the appellant's case on the ground that the assessee did not intend to stay permanently outside India and he refers to the fact that the assessee was visiting India very…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1212/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…this purpose, reliance was placed on the following decisions for the proposition that the expression "employment outside India" does not mean that an assessee cannot continue to be an employee of some other enti1y in India during that period:- i) Abdul Razak 337 ITR 350 British Gas India Pvt Ltd 287 ITR 462 ii) Zialluall Sheriff Vs ACIT (International Taxation) 316 iii) ITR (AT) 92, 116 TTJ 76 64. It is submitted that the AO has also rejected the appellant's case on the ground that the assessee did not intend to stay permanently outside India and he refers to the fact that the assessee was visiting India very…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1211/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…this purpose, reliance was placed on the following decisions for the proposition that the expression "employment outside India" does not mean that an assessee cannot continue to be an employee of some other enti1y in India during that period:- i) Abdul Razak 337 ITR 350 British Gas India Pvt Ltd 287 ITR 462 ii) Zialluall Sheriff Vs ACIT (International Taxation) 316 iii) ITR (AT) 92, 116 TTJ 76 64. It is submitted that the AO has also rejected the appellant's case on the ground that the assessee did not intend to stay permanently outside India and he refers to the fact that the assessee was visiting India very…

Shri Shyam Sunder Duseja, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(3), Jaipur, Ward-6(3)

In the result, the penalty so levied is hereby directed to be deleted and the matter is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 1277/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Gogra (Adv.)For Respondent: Miss Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…time after the expiry of the period aforesaid in pursuance of a notice under section 148.” 13. The aforesaid explanation 3 of Section 271(1)(c) had come up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Chhaganlal Suteriya V. ITO (2011) 337 ITR 350 (Guj) wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court observed as under: "A mere failure to furnish a return of income does not amount to concealment u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. But the introduction of Explanation 3 to section 271(1) with effect from April 1, 1976, has changed the law on the point in certain cases. For the purpose of fallin…

Ashok Arora, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3275/DEL/2009[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.N. CHARRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-3275/Del/2009 (Assessment Year: 1997-98) Ashok Arora vs ITO Prop. Sapna Lottery Agency Ward II(2) H.No. 1081, Sector-10, Faridabad Faridabad. ADLPA1355L Assessee by Sh. Kapil Goyal, Adv. Revenue by Sh. S.K. Jain, DR Date of Hearing 30.03.2017 Date of Pronouncement 21.04.2017 ORDER PER K. NARSIMHA CHARRY, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.05.2009 in appeal no. 32/2008-09 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap…

CIT v. Abdul Razzaq

What is CIT v. Abdul Razzaq authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Abdul Razzaq

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur

Mitesh Vijay Gulati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int. Tax Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Raghav Agarwalla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, International Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

Shri Jitendra P.Vaghela, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(3), Ahmedabad

Vijaybhai Dashrathbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

Shri Shyam Sunder Duseja, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(3), Jaipur, Ward-6(3)

Ashok Arora, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad