Manoj Kumar Reddy v. ITO, (International Taxation)

34 SOT 180Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#7417 most cited

What is Manoj Kumar Reddy v. ITO, (International Taxation) authority for?

When calculating the number of days an individual stays in India to determine their residency status, the date of arrival in India should be excluded. This principle is based on the interpretation of 'from' and 'to' in date calculations and is supported by Section 9 of the General Clauses Act.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Manoj Kumar Reddy v. ITO · 34 SOT 180 · Section 6(1) · residency · date of arrival · exclusion · computation of stay · General Clauses Act · Section 132(4) · non-resident

Sections most often in play

Section 115CSection 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 6(1)section 158bbretracted statementsection 69bsection 132(1)section 158bsection 158agricultural incomenon-residentsection 132(4)salarysection 139(1)

Judgments citing Manoj Kumar Reddy v. ITO, (International Taxation)

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)

…ataka High Court in the case of Director, International Taxation, Bangalore vs Manoj Kumar Reddy reported in [2011] 12 taxmann.com 326 (Karnataka) wherein the hon’ble Court had confirmed the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Bangalore reported in [2009] 34 SOT 180. The coordinate Bangalore bench of ITAT in para 3.24 & 3.25 of the order, observed as under:- 3.24 Thus, there are two views in respect of ignoring the fraction of a day. However, we can look at the issue from a different angle. When one has to compute the period for which an assessee is in India, one has to start the counting from a particular d…

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)

…ataka High Court in the case of Director, International Taxation, Bangalore vs Manoj Kumar Reddy reported in [2011] 12 taxmann.com 326 (Karnataka) wherein the hon’ble Court had confirmed the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Bangalore reported in [2009] 34 SOT 180. The coordinate Bangalore bench of ITAT in para 3.24 & 3.25 of the order, observed as under:- 3.24 Thus, there are two views in respect of ignoring the fraction of a day. However, we can look at the issue from a different angle. When one has to compute the period for which an assessee is in India, one has to start the counting from a particular d…

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)

…ataka High Court in the case of Director, International Taxation, Bangalore vs Manoj Kumar Reddy reported in [2011] 12 taxmann.com 326 (Karnataka) wherein the hon’ble Court had confirmed the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Bangalore reported in [2009] 34 SOT 180. The coordinate Bangalore bench of ITAT in para 3.24 & 3.25 of the order, observed as under:- 3.24 Thus, there are two views in respect of ignoring the fraction of a day. However, we can look at the issue from a different angle. When one has to compute the period for which an assessee is in India, one has to start the counting from a particular d…

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)

…ataka High Court in the case of Director, International Taxation, Bangalore vs Manoj Kumar Reddy reported in [2011] 12 taxmann.com 326 (Karnataka) wherein the hon’ble Court had confirmed the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Bangalore reported in [2009] 34 SOT 180. The coordinate Bangalore bench of ITAT in para 3.24 & 3.25 of the order, observed as under:- 3.24 Thus, there are two views in respect of ignoring the fraction of a day. However, we can look at the issue from a different angle. When one has to compute the period for which an assessee is in India, one has to start the counting from a particular d…

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)

…ataka High Court in the case of Director, International Taxation, Bangalore vs Manoj Kumar Reddy reported in [2011] 12 taxmann.com 326 (Karnataka) wherein the hon’ble Court had confirmed the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Bangalore reported in [2009] 34 SOT 180. The coordinate Bangalore bench of ITAT in para 3.24 & 3.25 of the order, observed as under:- 3.24 Thus, there are two views in respect of ignoring the fraction of a day. However, we can look at the issue from a different angle. When one has to compute the period for which an assessee is in India, one has to start the counting from a particular d…

Pradeep Kumar Joshi (L/H Smt. Sangeeta P. Joshi), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1 Int.Taxa., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 3(1)(b)Section 6(1)(a)

…ork next day and generally left early in the morning so as to attend the work again after arriving at the destination. Then he analyzed the General Clauses Act and the decision of the ITAT Banglore in the case of Manoj Kumar Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer (IT), 34 SOT 180 (Bang.) and allowed assessee's contention that his stay was less than 180 days in India during the relevant period. The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai held that "We have considered the rival contentions and examined the facts. As rightly pointed out by the CIT (A), there was a mistake of taking number of days at Item No.3. Therefore, according to AO's own m…

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)

…mitted that in page 231 of the Paper Book these details are furnished. The AO has included the dates of arrival in India also as being present in India. In this connection as held by the Co-ordinate Bench in Manoj Kumar Reddy Vs ITO, (International Taxation), 34 SOT 180, the date of arrival should be excluded while calculating the number of days present in India. It was held that the date of arrival should be excluded. The above decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in DIT Vs Manoj Kumar Reddy Nare, 12 Taxmann.com 326. The assessee worked out his presence in India during the…

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)

…mitted that in page 231 of the Paper Book these details are furnished. The AO has included the dates of arrival in India also as being present in India. In this connection as held by the Co-ordinate Bench in Manoj Kumar Reddy Vs ITO, (International Taxation), 34 SOT 180, the date of arrival should be excluded while calculating the number of days present in India. It was held that the date of arrival should be excluded. The above decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in DIT Vs Manoj Kumar Reddy Nare, 12 Taxmann.com 326. The assessee worked out his presence in India during the…

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)

…mitted that in page 231 of the Paper Book these details are furnished. The AO has included the dates of arrival in India also as being present in India. In this connection as held by the Co-ordinate Bench in Manoj Kumar Reddy Vs ITO, (International Taxation), 34 SOT 180, the date of arrival should be excluded while calculating the number of days present in India. It was held that the date of arrival should be excluded. The above decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in DIT Vs Manoj Kumar Reddy Nare, 12 Taxmann.com 326. The assessee worked out his presence in India during the…

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)

…mitted that in page 231 of the Paper Book these details are furnished. The AO has included the dates of arrival in India also as being present in India. In this connection as held by the Co-ordinate Bench in Manoj Kumar Reddy Vs ITO, (International Taxation), 34 SOT 180, the date of arrival should be excluded while calculating the number of days present in India. It was held that the date of arrival should be excluded. The above decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in DIT Vs Manoj Kumar Reddy Nare, 12 Taxmann.com 326. The assessee worked out his presence in India during the…

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)

…mitted that in page 231 of the Paper Book these details are furnished. The AO has included the dates of arrival in India also as being present in India. In this connection as held by the Co-ordinate Bench in Manoj Kumar Reddy Vs ITO, (International Taxation), 34 SOT 180, the date of arrival should be excluded while calculating the number of days present in India. It was held that the date of arrival should be excluded. The above decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in DIT Vs Manoj Kumar Reddy Nare, 12 Taxmann.com 326. The assessee worked out his presence in India during the…

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)

…mitted that in page 231 of the Paper Book these details are furnished. The AO has included the dates of arrival in India also as being present in India. In this connection as held by the Co-ordinate Bench in Manoj Kumar Reddy Vs ITO, (International Taxation), 34 SOT 180, the date of arrival should be excluded while calculating the number of days present in India. It was held that the date of arrival should be excluded. The above decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in DIT Vs Manoj Kumar Reddy Nare, 12 Taxmann.com 326. The assessee worked out his presence in India during the…

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)

…mitted that in page 231 of the Paper Book these details are furnished. The AO has included the dates of arrival in India also as being present in India. In this connection as held by the Co-ordinate Bench in Manoj Kumar Reddy Vs ITO, (International Taxation), 34 SOT 180, the date of arrival should be excluded while calculating the number of days present in India. It was held that the date of arrival should be excluded. The above decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in DIT Vs Manoj Kumar Reddy Nare, 12 Taxmann.com 326. The assessee worked out his presence in India during the…

Samir Kumar Ghosh, Howrah vs. ITO, WD-16(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 819/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 6Section 6(1)(a)Section 6(5)Section 9

…eneral clauses Act explains that both the date of departure and the date of arrival cannot be considered for the computation of the period of staying in India and relied on the decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Manoj Kumar Reddy vs ITO reported in 34 SOT 180 (Bang), which was also later upheld by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. 11. Heard Ld.AR of the assessee and on careful perusal of the material available on record, the only question remains for our consideration is as to whether the CIT-A is justified in confirming the status of Assessee as Resident basing on the stay put in India of 184 days as…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,बी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ITA NOs.4596 to 4598/Mum/2012 Assessment Years- 2007-08 to 2009-10 DCIT, CC-40, Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Room NO.653, 6th Floor, 9th Floor, Opp. Asian Paints, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, LBS Marg, Bhandup, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400078 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AMXPS1998L Cross Objections Nos.148 to 150/Mum/2013 (Arising out of IT…

Manoj Kumar Reddy v. ITO, (International Taxation) (34 SOT 180) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax