CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan

247 ITR 260High Court2001#2196 most cited

What is CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan authority for?

Salary received by a non-resident for services rendered outside India accrues outside India and is not taxable in India. Only salary earned for work performed in India is regarded as income arising in India and is taxable.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan · Section 9(1)(ii) · Section 5(2) · Section 6(1) · Section 90 · non-resident salary income · income deemed to accrue · services rendered outside India · foreign going ship · taxability of salary

Also reported as

115 Taxmann 536

Sections most often in play

Section 15Section 9(1)(ii)Section 234BSection 5(2)Section 6(1)Section 90Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(ii)section 6(1)tax residency certificatesection 5(2)trcsection 234dsection 90(2)foreign tax creditsection 90section 9(1)non-residentliable to tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan

Ashwini Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. DCIT(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 595/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm ] I.T. A No. 595/Kol/2017 A.Y 2012-13 Ashwini Kumar Singh V/S. D.C.I.T (It)- 1(1), Kolkata Pan: Bcxps7564P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 15Section 5

…tion 5(2)(b) and there would not be any need for having section 5(2)(a) on the statute. 10.2 We find that heavy reliance has been placed by the Learned AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Avtar Singh Wadhwan reported in 247 ITR 260(Bom) which was in turn 7 followed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT (Intl.) Taxn) vs Prahlad Vijendra Rao reported in 239 CTR 107 (Kar). We find that the question before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was to decide the place of accrual of income. The Court held that the income accrues in the place where the services were rendered…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur vs. Chukkapalli Mallikarjuna, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 456/VIZ/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. Chukkapalli Mallikarjuna, Guntur. D.No. 6-20, Main Road, Duggirala, Guntur District. Pan No. Acnpc 9354 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 5(2)Section 5(2)(a)

…received in India by the appellant by virtue of sec. 5(2)(a) of the Income Tax. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant filed (Chukkapalli Mallikarjuna) submissions and also copies of decisions in the following cases. Avatar Singh Wadhwan (247 ITR 260) Bombay HC 1. UTANKA Roy (W.P. No. 369/2014) Calcutta HG 2. Sumana Bandopadhyay & another in GA 3745/2016 Calcutta HC 3. Arnab Bose in (ITA No. 176/Kol/2016) ITAT, Kolkata. 4. Arvind Singh Chauhan (ITA No. 319 & 320/Agr/2013) ITAT, Agra 5. Tarun kumar Sarkar (ITA No. 69/Kol/2016) ITAT, Kolkata. 6. The appellant contended that the provisions of se…

DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Subhankar Sen, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in all the three cases

ITA 656/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 656/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(It),Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Subhankar Sen [Pan: Ambps 0306 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Navin Jain, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 192(1)Section 5(2)

…assessee herein. 7.6. We also find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT (International Taxation) vs Prahlad Vijendra Rao reported in 198 Taxman 551 (Kar) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Avtar Singh Wadhwan reported in 247 ITR 260 (Bom) had held that in the case of a non-resident, when services are rendered outside India , the accrual of income thereon happens outside India and hence the same cannot be brought to tax in India as per section 5(2) of the Act. As stated above, we find that the assessee was able to get control over the funds in his TCC for the first time only…

DCIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkatab-N, Kolkata vs. Shri Sudipta Maiti, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in all the three cases

ITA 428/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 428/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Sudipta Maity [Pan: Aogpm 3882 A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. B. Som, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 192(1)Section 5(2)

…assessee herein. 7.6. We also find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT (International Taxation) vs Prahlad Vijendra Rao reported in 198 Taxman 551 (Kar) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Avtar Singh Wadhwan reported in 247 ITR 260 (Bom) had held that in the case of a non-resident, when services are rendered outside India , the accrual of income thereon happens outside India and hence the same cannot be brought to tax in India as per section 5(2) of the Act. As stated above, we find that the assessee was able to get control over the funds in his TCC for the first time only…

DCIT(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Souvik Basu, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in all the three cases

ITA 425/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 428/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Sudipta Maity [Pan: Aogpm 3882 A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. B. Som, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 192(1)Section 5(2)

…assessee herein. 7.6. We also find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT (International Taxation) vs Prahlad Vijendra Rao reported in 198 Taxman 551 (Kar) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Avtar Singh Wadhwan reported in 247 ITR 260 (Bom) had held that in the case of a non-resident, when services are rendered outside India , the accrual of income thereon happens outside India and hence the same cannot be brought to tax in India as per section 5(2) of the Act. As stated above, we find that the assessee was able to get control over the funds in his TCC for the first time only…

ACIT(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Bodhisattava Chattopadhyay, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in all the three cases

ITA 416/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 428/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Sudipta Maity [Pan: Aogpm 3882 A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. B. Som, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 192(1)Section 5(2)

…assessee herein. 7.6. We also find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT (International Taxation) vs Prahlad Vijendra Rao reported in 198 Taxman 551 (Kar) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Avtar Singh Wadhwan reported in 247 ITR 260 (Bom) had held that in the case of a non-resident, when services are rendered outside India , the accrual of income thereon happens outside India and hence the same cannot be brought to tax in India as per section 5(2) of the Act. As stated above, we find that the assessee was able to get control over the funds in his TCC for the first time only…

Gautam Harikishan Kamdar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(1)It, Mumbai

ITA 362/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 362/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 6

…In this connection, reliance is placed on the following decisions:- DIT (Intnl. Taxation) v PrahladVijendra Rao (2011) 198 Taxman 551 (Kar.)/(2011) 24 CTR Kar.) 107; Ranjit Kumar Bose v ITO (1986) 18 ITD 230 (Calcutta ITAT); CIT v Avtar Singh Wadhwan (2001) 247 ITR 260 (Bom.); Sreenivas Kumar Sistla (AAR No.514 of 2000). 12.9 For the aforesaid reasons, the salary which was received by the assessee for the services rendered in Japan for the period 1/4/2005 to 31/3/2006 is not liable to tax in India. Apart from this, Ld. AR also relied upon the judgment in the case of DIT Vrs., PrahaladVijendra Rao [ITA NO. 838…

Ramesh Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO International Taxation, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1979/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 06.11.2017
Section 143(2)Section 6(1)Section 90

…ein held that income received by the assessee towards salary for an employment outside India to be considered as income received out of India and not to be taxable in India. Further, the assessee relied on the judgment of CIT Vs.Avtar Singh Wadhwan in (2001) 247 ITR 260(Bom.) & Arvind Singh Chauhan in (2014) 147 ITD 409. Accordingly, he submitted that salry was accrued outside India and by arrangement, was remitted to India and received in India that constitute receipt of salary is outside India. 5.1 On the other hand, the contention of ld.D.R is that salary for services rendered outside India would be taxab…

Shri Tapas Kumar Bandopadhyay, Kolkata vs. DCIT, (It), 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 70/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. H. Choudhury, JDIT
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 6

…efore the lower authorities. He argued that the facts in the present case are squarely covered by the following decisions: “i) DIT (International Taxation) Anr. Vs. Prahlad Vijendra Rao reported in 239 CTR 107(Kar), ii) CIT Vs. Avtar Singh Wadhwan reported in 247 ITR 260 (Bom) In response to this, the Learned DR argued that as per Section 5 of the Act, so far as non-residents are concerned, total income includes all income from whatever source derived which: i. is received in India [section 5(2(a)], or ii. is deemed to be received in India [section 5(2(a)], or iii. accrues or arises to him in India [section 5(2(b…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5290/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun C/O Nangia & Company, Suite 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (Pan: Aabch9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 92

…-French Textile Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 27 (SC); (7) Hukum Chand Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 1976 CTR (SC) 217 : (1976) 103 ITR 548 (SC); & C.O. No. 463/Del/2012, AY-2009-10 Hallin Marine UK Ltd. (8) CIT vs. Avtar Singh Wadhwan (2001) 165 CTR (Bom) 414 : (2001) 247 ITR 260 (Bom); (9) CBDT vs. Chowgule & Co. Ltd. & Ors. (1991) 98 CTR (Kar) 124 : (1991) 192 ITR 40 (Kar); (10) V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. Ltd. vs. Deputy Controller, RBI & Ors. (1991) 93 CTR (Kar) 49 : (1991) 187 ITR 381 (Kar); (11) CIT vs. Best & Co. (P) Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC); (12) CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1982) 29 CTR (Cal) 25 : (1983) 142 ITR…

Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5217/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun C/O Nangia & Company, Suite 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (Pan: Aabch9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 92

…-French Textile Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 27 (SC); (7) Hukum Chand Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 1976 CTR (SC) 217 : (1976) 103 ITR 548 (SC); & C.O. No. 463/Del/2012, AY-2009-10 Hallin Marine UK Ltd. (8) CIT vs. Avtar Singh Wadhwan (2001) 165 CTR (Bom) 414 : (2001) 247 ITR 260 (Bom); (9) CBDT vs. Chowgule & Co. Ltd. & Ors. (1991) 98 CTR (Kar) 124 : (1991) 192 ITR 40 (Kar); (10) V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. Ltd. vs. Deputy Controller, RBI & Ors. (1991) 93 CTR (Kar) 49 : (1991) 187 ITR 381 (Kar); (11) CIT vs. Best & Co. (P) Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC); (12) CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1982) 29 CTR (Cal) 25 : (1983) 142 ITR…

R. Kundan & Co., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6143/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 5Section 6Section 6(1)(c)Section 9

…g their visits, upto one hundred and eighty-one days in a previous year." The judicial authorities have had occasion to consider the implications of Section 6 of the Income Tax Act read with various Explanations which are as under: CIT Vs Avtar Singh Wadhwan, 247 ITR 260 (Born.) "Section 6 indicates the meaning of residence in India. Section 6 lays down that for the purpose of the Income Tax Act an individual is said to be resident in India if he is in India for a 29 Mr. Binod Kumar Singh prescribed period. Therefore section 6 emphasis physical presence of the person in India". ITO V/s. Dr. M.P. Konan Halli 55 l…

Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable P.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Inocme Tax

Appeal is allowed and order of the Tribunal is set aside

ITA/980/2009HC Delhi19 Oct 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

Section 143Section 40

…ITA No.980/2009 Page 1 of 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + {ITA No.980 OF 2009} % Date of order:19th October, 2010. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT, VEGETABLE P. LTD. . . . APPELLANT Through : Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar,Advocate VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ….RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether Reporters…