CIT v. Dhote (B.K.)

66 ITR 457Supreme Court of India1967#25437 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 6(1)Section 69ASection 115BBESection 120

Judgments citing CIT v. Dhote (B.K.)

Prabhakar Mada, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 429/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.429/Hyd./2026 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Prabhakar Mada, The Income Tax Officer- Hyderabad – 500 055. Vs. (Int. Taxn)-1, Hyderabad Pan Bdapm4650G Pin – 500 004. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri D V Anjaneyulu, C.A. For Revenue : Sri P Dhivahar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri D V Anjaneyulu, C.AFor Respondent: Sri P Dhivahar, CIT-DR
Section 120Section 124(1)(b)Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 6(1)Section 69A

…der the provision of Section 6(1) read with section 124(1)(b) is not under his jurisdiction as the return itself is filed under the status of resident and also enclosed details of Passport and NRE account in proof of the same as held in CIT v B.K Dhote [1967] 66 ITR 457 (SC) and therefore the very order passed is legally invalid and ab-intio-void. 2.2 The Learned AO erred in law in proposing addition of Rs.27,10,916 as income from capital gains by disallowing the cost of construction without considering the same which was incurred to the assessee as the developer couldn't comply with the terms of development agr…

Nayna Mukeshkumar Kotecha, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statical purpose

ITA 187/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

…ndividual is NOT by default 'RESIDENT', unlike sec. 6(2)/6(4) – where HUF/any other person is 'always resident, unless proved otherwise'. ii. The onus lies on Department to prove that assessee fulfils conditions of sec. 6(1)(a)-(c). – CIT V. B.K. Dhote [1967] 66 ITR 457 (SC).1 iii. The onus lies on the AO to determine residential status, each year. There is no concept in law, that residential status is "carried forward", from past periods. 5. Reopening Invalid Due to Lack of Jurisdiction: The notice u/s. 148A / 148 suffers with “inherent lack of jurisdiction” with ld. ITO Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot, rendering entire pr…

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

…) lays down a technical test of territorial connection amounting to residence to all individuals - foreigners as well as Indians including Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Parsis and other irrespective of the personal law governing them. CIT v Dhote (B.K.) (1967) 66 ITR 457 (SC) Also see Moosa S. Madht & Azam S. Madha v. CIT 89 ITR 65 (SC). Onus to prove stay in India with department: The onus of proving that the assessee was in India during the four years preceding the previous year for a period or periods in the aggregate of not less than 365 days, and was in India for at least 60 days during the previous year, lie…