← All Phrases

“Section 6(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 6Section 6(1)97 judgments

MAHALAXMI CONTINENTAL LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (DCIT/ACIT CIR-1), GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 54/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 250Section 92B

statute must be considered as a law that never existed. To this rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions of Section 6(1). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds

MAHALAXMI CONTINENTAL LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (DCIT/ACIT CIR-1), GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 53/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 250Section 92B

statute must be considered as a law that never existed. To this rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions of Section 6(1). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. TANMAI RAJ GOPAL, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1887/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 234DSection 250Section 6(1)(a)

test for the calendar year and that he stayed in US around 70 days in the year under consideration and as per the section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 any person will be considered as resident if he/she stays more than 182 days in India

APARNA GIRISH HEBBANI,AUSTRALIA vs. INT TAX WARD 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5061/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Aparna Girish Hebbani Income Tax Officer, 21, Hallow Crescent, Ward – 2(2)(1), Augustine Heights, Queensland, Vs. Mumbai Australia (Pan : Ahhph4844H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Harshavardhan V. Bapat & Shri Raj Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit (A) 56, Mumbai Vide Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1061197750(1), Dated 20.02.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.01.2022 For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Harshavardhan V. Bapat and Shri Raj Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

NAYNA MUKESHKUMAR KOTECHA,DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, RAJKOT, 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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN

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)

case. The Appellant was having the status “Non Resident” in the relevant Assessment year in view of clause (b) of explanation 1 to section 6(1)( c ) the Income Tax Act, however the Ld. CIT (A) has incorrectly mentioned that the explanation (1) is not applicable in the case ... less than 182 days and therefore, has enjoyed the status of ‘non-resident’ in terms of clause (b) of explanation 1 to section 6(1)( c ) the Income Tax Act, however, the AO has held the assessee as ‘resident’. Ld.AR also submits that during the course of assessment proceedings

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)

case. The Appellant was having the status “Non Resident” in the relevant Assessment year in view of clause (b) of explanation 1 to section 6(1)( c ) the Income Tax Act, however the Ld. CIT (A) has incorrectly mentioned that the explanation (1) is not applicable in the case ... less than 182 days and therefore, has enjoyed the status of ‘non-resident’ in terms of clause (b) of explanation 1 to section 6(1)( c ) the Income Tax Act, however, the AO has held the assessee as ‘resident’. Ld.AR also submits that during the course of assessment proceedings

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)

case. The Appellant was having the status “Non Resident” in the relevant Assessment year in view of clause (b) of explanation 1 to section 6(1)( c ) the Income Tax Act, however the Ld. CIT (A) has incorrectly mentioned that the explanation (1) is not applicable in the case ... less than 182 days and therefore, has enjoyed the status of ‘non-resident’ in terms of clause (b) of explanation 1 to section 6(1)( c ) the Income Tax Act, however, the AO has held the assessee as ‘resident’. Ld.AR also submits that during the course of assessment proceedings

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)

case. The Appellant was having the status “Non Resident” in the relevant Assessment year in view of clause (b) of explanation 1 to section 6(1)( c ) the Income Tax Act, however the Ld. CIT (A) has incorrectly mentioned that the explanation (1) is not applicable in the case ... less than 182 days and therefore, has enjoyed the status of ‘non-resident’ in terms of clause (b) of explanation 1 to section 6(1)( c ) the Income Tax Act, however, the AO has held the assessee as ‘resident’. Ld.AR also submits that during the course of assessment proceedings

SHRI SURESHKUMAR HARJIVANBHAI CHANDARANA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2 (2) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 415/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 415/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Sureshkumar Harjivanbhai Chandarana Acit, Circle – 2(2)(1), Rajkot A-75, New Market Yard, Village-Bedi, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Morbi, Highway, Rajkot- 360 003 Road, Rajkot –360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpc8536E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Durga Dutt, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/11/2025 : 15/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal Cit(A), Ahmedabad-13 Dated 06.10.2023 [In Short, “Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act, Vide Order Dated 19.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

statute must be considered as a law that never existed. To this rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions of Section 6(1). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally Page 8 of 11 ITA No. 415/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 16-17 Sureshkumar H. Chandarana omitted without a saving clause

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 902/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

during the relevant\nfinancial year. The assessee's stay in India was thus minimal and far below\nthe 182-day threshold prescribed under Section 6(1), firmly establishing her\nstatus as a Non-Resident for this year as well.\nIV.\nFor AY 2020-21 (FY 2019-20), the assessee

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 901/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

during the relevant\nfinancial year. The assessee's stay in India was thus minimal and far below\nthe 182-day threshold prescribed under Section 6(1), firmly establishing her\nstatus as a Non-Resident for this year as well.\nIV.\nFor AY 2020-21 (FY 2019-20), the assessee

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 900/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

during the relevant financial year. The assessee’s stay in India was thus minimal and far below the 182-day threshold prescribed under Section 6(1), firmly establishing her status as a Non-Resident for this year as well. IV. For AY 2020-21 (FY 2019-20), the assessee

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 899/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

during the relevant\nfinancial year. The assessee's stay in India was thus minimal and far below\nthe 182-day threshold prescribed under Section 6(1), firmly establishing her\nstatus as a Non-Resident for this year as well.\n\nIV.\nFor AY 2020-21 (FY 2019-20), the assessee

TATA STEEL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF ANGUL ENERGY LIMITED),DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4171/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 80Section 92BSection 92CSection 93C

statute must be considered as a law that never existed. To this rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions of section 6(1). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds

DEBASHIS DAS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.947/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Debashis Das………………………………………................................……….…Appellant Uttara Tritiya Housing Complex, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Near City Center-2, W.B– 700156. [Pan: Aixpd81639Q] Vs. Acit, International Taxaion-1(1), Kolkata ..L..….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015–16. The Ld. Cit(A) Sustained The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Salary Income Earned By The Assessee During His Short-Term Foreign Assignment In The Philippines. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 366 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 5(2)(b)Section 6(1)

Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the assessee stayed in India for only 29 days during the relevant year, and therefore, as per Section 6(1), he qualified as a non- resident. It was contended that a non-resident is taxable in India only on I.T.A. No.947/Kol/2023 Debashis Das income ... services rendered outside India. It is undisputed that the assessee stayed in India only 29 days during the relevant previous year. Under Section 6(1) of the Act , any individual staying in India for less than 182 days in a year is a non-resident. The assessee is therefore

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)(I/C), CHENNAI vs. PAUL DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1592/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & C.O Nos.52, 53, 54 & 55/Chny/2025 (Arises In Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Paul Dhinakaran, Tax, Vs. No.7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Central Circle-3(1)(I/C), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aabpd 8489M

For Appellant: Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 6Section 6(1)(c)

expenses, holding that the assessee was a Non- Resident for all the four years under consideration, in terms of Explanation 1(a) to section 6(1)(c) of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions towards personal gifts of Rs.3 ... employed with JCI (USA) during all 4 years and was thus non- resident in India as per the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 6(1) of the Act.” ITA Nos.1562, 1563,1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 C.O Nos.52 to 54/Chny/2025 Paul Dhinakaran :- 5 -: The Ld. AR therefore requested that the findings

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)(I/C), CHENNAI vs. PAUL DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1591/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & C.O Nos.52, 53, 54 & 55/Chny/2025 (Arises In Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Paul Dhinakaran, Tax, Vs. No.7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Central Circle-3(1)(I/C), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aabpd 8489M

For Appellant: Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 6Section 6(1)(c)

expenses, holding that the assessee was a Non- Resident for all the four years under consideration, in terms of Explanation 1(a) to section 6(1)(c) of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions towards personal gifts of Rs.3 ... employed with JCI (USA) during all 4 years and was thus non- resident in India as per the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 6(1) of the Act.” ITA Nos.1562, 1563,1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 C.O Nos.52 to 54/Chny/2025 Paul Dhinakaran :- 5 -: The Ld. AR therefore requested that the findings

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)(I/C), CHENNAI vs. PAUL DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1563/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & C.O Nos.52, 53, 54 & 55/Chny/2025 (Arises In Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Paul Dhinakaran, Tax, Vs. No.7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Central Circle-3(1)(I/C), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aabpd 8489M

For Appellant: Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 6Section 6(1)(c)

expenses, holding that the assessee was a Non- Resident for all the four years under consideration, in terms of Explanation 1(a) to section 6(1)(c) of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions towards personal gifts of Rs.3 ... employed with JCI (USA) during all 4 years and was thus non- resident in India as per the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 6(1) of the Act.” ITA Nos.1562, 1563,1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 C.O Nos.52 to 54/Chny/2025 Paul Dhinakaran :- 5 -: The Ld. AR therefore requested that the findings

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)(I/C), CHENNAI vs. PAUL DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1562/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & C.O Nos.52, 53, 54 & 55/Chny/2025 (Arises In Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Paul Dhinakaran, Tax, Vs. No.7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Central Circle-3(1)(I/C), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aabpd 8489M

For Appellant: Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 6Section 6(1)(c)

expenses, holding that the assessee was a Non- Resident for all the four years under consideration, in terms of Explanation 1(a) to section 6(1)(c) of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions towards personal gifts of Rs.3 ... employed with JCI (USA) during all 4 years and was thus non- resident in India as per the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 6(1) of the Act.” ITA Nos.1562, 1563,1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 C.O Nos.52 to 54/Chny/2025 Paul Dhinakaran :- 5 -: The Ld. AR therefore requested that the findings

Showing 1–20 of 97 · Page 1 of 5