CIT v. Morgenstern Werner

259 ITR 486Supreme Court of India2003#20167 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Morgenstern Werner

Saket Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 1112/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 5

…dia. That we are submitting herewith the Salary Certificate along with following Judicial Pronouncements for your kindperusal:- a. The Hon'ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA incase of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Morgenstern Werner* [2003] 132 Taxman 214 (SC)/[2003] 259 ITR 486 (SC)/[2003] 18...[2003] 132 Taxman 214 (SC) held that “Section5, read with section6, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income - Accrual of Assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 - Petitioner, a German technician on deputation in India, stayed for more than 182 days during assessment years under consideration - He received daily allowance in India from…

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

…ommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Our attention was invited to section 6 of the Act by placing reliance upon the decision in 300 ITR 231 (SC). However, necessary enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer. Reliance was further placed upon the decision in 259 ITR 486 (SC). The crux of argument advanced by ld. CIT-DR is that the passport was not produced. At this stage, Shri Jitendra Sanghavi along with Shri Amit Khatiwala, the ld. counsel for the assessee, intervened and explained that passport was duly produced by the assessee by inviting our attention to page-18 of the paper book. It was fairly agreed by th…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mr.Sakakibara Yutaka

ITA - 111 / 2006HC Delhi03 Aug 2012
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 17(2)Section 5(1)(c)Section 6(6)Section 90(2)

…that the view adopted by the Tribunal is in tune with the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Morgenstern Werner v. CIT and Anr., (1998) 233 ITR 751, which was approved by the Supreme Court in its decision reported as CIT v. Morgenstern Werner, (2003) 259 ITR 486 (SC). In this view of the matter and having regard to the, undisputed facts and the fact that the status of the assessee was that of “not ordinarily resident” in India, having worked in India for 273 days in the relevant previous year and not being “resident” in India in any of the nine out of ten previous years, the order of the Tribunal im…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mr.Sakakibara Yutaka

ITA/111/2006HC Delhi03 Aug 2012
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 17(2)Section 5(1)(c)Section 6(6)Section 90(2)

…that the view adopted by the Tribunal is in tune with the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Morgenstern Werner v. CIT and Anr., (1998) 233 ITR 751, which was approved by the Supreme Court in its decision reported as CIT v. Morgenstern Werner, (2003) 259 ITR 486 (SC). In this view of the matter and having regard to the, undisputed facts and the fact that the status of the assessee was that of “not ordinarily resident” in India, having worked in India for 273 days in the relevant previous year and not being “resident” in India in any of the nine out of ten previous years, the order of the Tribunal im…

CIT v. Morgenstern Werner (259 ITR 486) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax