Narottam and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT

23 ITR 454High Court1953#8319 most cited

What is Narottam and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A company is considered a resident of India only when its control and management are "wholly" situated in India. If any part of the control and management is located outside India, the company cannot be deemed a resident.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Narottam and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT · Section 6(3) · company residence · control and management · wholly situated in India · resident of India · incorporated outside India

Sections most often in play

Section 13(4)Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)Section 90

Issues it is cited on

section 6(3)(ii)section 271(1)(a)section 6(3)section 4asection 163section 51section 124principal officersection 282section 246section 260interest under section 234a

Judgments citing Narottam and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT

Essar Communications Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle-1 (2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

…and management is “wholly” situated in India. Therefore, if any part of the control and management is situated outside India, the company cannot be considered a resident of India. 38. In this regard, reliance is placed on Narottam Pereira Ltd. vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 454 (Bom), CIT vs. Nandlal Gandalal (1960) 40 ITR 1 (SC), Radha Rani Holdings (P.) Ltd. vs. ADIT (2007) (110 TTJ 920)(Delhi ITAT) wherein the courts/tribunals have held that a company incorporated outside India will not be considered as a resident of India if any part of the control and management is situated outside India. 39. This is further amplifi…

Essar Com Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 339/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

…a. Therefore, if any part of the control and management is situated outside India, the company cannot be considered a resident of India. 38. 39. 40. 19 ITA Nos.339 & 340/Del/2022 In this regard, reliance is placed on Narottam Pereira Ltd. vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 454 (Bom), CIT vs. Nandlal Gandalal (1960) 40 ITR 1 (SC), Radha Rani Holdings (P.) Ltd. vs. ADIT (2007) (110 TTJ 920)(Delhi ITAT) wherein the courts/tribunals have held that a company incorporated outside India will not be considered as a resident of India if any part of the control and management is situated outside India. This is further amplified…

Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi

C.A. No.-005769-005769 - 2022Supreme Court10 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 26Section 6(3)

…th under the Act, 1922 and Act, 1961: i) San Paulo v. Carter (1896) AC 31 Lord Halsbury; ii) V.V.R.N.M. Subbayya Chettiar v. CIT, Madras, AIR 1951 SC 101; iii) Erin Estate v. CIT, 1959 SCR 573; iv) Narottan and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT, Bombay City, 1953 23 ITR 454 (paragraphs 3 & 4) (Bombay High Court Judgment); CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 26 of 67 v) Estate of A. Mohammed Rowther v. CIT, Madras, 1963 49 ITR 39, (Madras High Court Judgment); vi) CIT v. Chitra Palayakat Co., 1985 156 ITR 730 (Madras High Court Judgment); vii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nandlal Gandalal, 1960 40 ITR 1 (SC);…

Forbes Container Line Pte. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 972/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.972/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Forbes Container Line Pte. The Deputy Director Of बनाम/ Ltd., Income Tax (International V. Ground Floor, Taxation) – 3(2), Forbes Building, Scindia House, Charanjit Rai Marg, Fort, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. Mumbai – 400038. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcf0967H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. Pooja Swaroop,DR
Section 144Section 44BSection 5(2)Section 9

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “L” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.972/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Forbes Container Line Pte. The Deputy Director of बनाम/ Ltd., Income Tax (International v. Ground floor, Taxation) – 3(2), Forbes Building, Scindia House, Charanjit Rai Marg, Fort, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. Mumbai – 400038. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AABCF0967H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Girish Dave & Miss Kadambari Dave…

Commissioner of Income Tax- Delhi vs. M/S Pasupati Nath Commr. P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA/168/2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

…hat the company performs some of the vital organic functions incidental to its existence as such in both the places, so that in fact there are two centres of management.” 64. To the same effect is the decision in Narottam and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 454 (Bom) where the Assessee was carrying on the business of stevedoring in Ceylon. It was registered in Bombay and its registered office was also in Bombay. The meetings of the board of directors are held in Bombay and also the meetings of the shareholders. The question before the Court was whether the company was a resident within the meaning of…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Swastik Commercial P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA/165/2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

…hat the company performs some of the vital organic functions incidental to its existence as such in both the places, so that in fact there are two centres of management.” 64. To the same effect is the decision in Narottam and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 454 (Bom) where the Assessee was carrying on the business of stevedoring in Ceylon. It was registered in Bombay and its registered office was also in Bombay. The meetings of the board of directors are held in Bombay and also the meetings of the shareholders. The question before the Court was whether the company was a resident within the meaning of…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Trishul Commercial P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA/167/2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

…hat the company performs some of the vital organic functions incidental to its existence as such in both the places, so that in fact there are two centres of management.” 64. To the same effect is the decision in Narottam and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 454 (Bom) where the Assessee was carrying on the business of stevedoring in Ceylon. It was registered in Bombay and its registered office was also in Bombay. The meetings of the board of directors are held in Bombay and also the meetings of the shareholders. The question before the Court was whether the company was a resident within the meaning of…

Commissioner of Income Tax- Delhi vs. M/S Mansarover Commercial P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA/162/2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

…hat the company performs some of the vital organic functions incidental to its existence as such in both the places, so that in fact there are two centres of management.” 64. To the same effect is the decision in Narottam and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 454 (Bom) where the Assessee was carrying on the business of stevedoring in Ceylon. It was registered in Bombay and its registered office was also in Bombay. The meetings of the board of directors are held in Bombay and also the meetings of the shareholders. The question before the Court was whether the company was a resident within the meaning of…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Soverign Commercial P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA/164/2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

…hat the company performs some of the vital organic functions incidental to its existence as such in both the places, so that in fact there are two centres of management.” 64. To the same effect is the decision in Narottam and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 454 (Bom) where the Assessee was carrying on the business of stevedoring in Ceylon. It was registered in Bombay and its registered office was also in Bombay. The meetings of the board of directors are held in Bombay and also the meetings of the shareholders. The question before the Court was whether the company was a resident within the meaning of…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Soverign Commercial P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 164 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016
Section 260A

…hat the company performs some of the vital organic functions incidental to its existence as such in both the places, so that in fact there are two centres of management.” 64. To the same effect is the decision in Narottam and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 454 (Bom) where the Assessee was carrying on the business of stevedoring in Ceylon. It was registered in Bombay and its registered office was also in Bombay. The meetings of the board of directors are held in Bombay and also the meetings of the shareholders. The question before the Court was whether the company was a resident within the meaning of…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Swastik Commercial P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 165 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016
Section 260A

…hat the company performs some of the vital organic functions incidental to its existence as such in both the places, so that in fact there are two centres of management.” 64. To the same effect is the decision in Narottam and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 454 (Bom) where the Assessee was carrying on the business of stevedoring in Ceylon. It was registered in Bombay and its registered office was also in Bombay. The meetings of the board of directors are held in Bombay and also the meetings of the shareholders. The question before the Court was whether the company was a resident within the meaning of…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Trishul Commercial P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 167 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016
Section 260A

…hat the company performs some of the vital organic functions incidental to its existence as such in both the places, so that in fact there are two centres of management.” 64. To the same effect is the decision in Narottam and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 454 (Bom) where the Assessee was carrying on the business of stevedoring in Ceylon. It was registered in Bombay and its registered office was also in Bombay. The meetings of the board of directors are held in Bombay and also the meetings of the shareholders. The question before the Court was whether the company was a resident within the meaning of…

Commissioner of Income Tax- Delhi vs. M/S Pasupati Nath Commr. P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 168 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016
Section 260A

…hat the company performs some of the vital organic functions incidental to its existence as such in both the places, so that in fact there are two centres of management.” 64. To the same effect is the decision in Narottam and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 454 (Bom) where the Assessee was carrying on the business of stevedoring in Ceylon. It was registered in Bombay and its registered office was also in Bombay. The meetings of the board of directors are held in Bombay and also the meetings of the shareholders. The question before the Court was whether the company was a resident within the meaning of…