← All Phrases

“Section 6(1)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 6(1) is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 6(1)

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court
451
citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

Judgments citing Section 6(1)

Panacea Boitec Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT National Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 807/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2016-17 Panacea Boitec Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, G-3/B-1 Extension, National Assessment Mohan Coop. Indl Centre, Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi. New Delhi – 110044 Pan Aaacp5335J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 6Section 6(1)Section 92BSection 92C

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

Yogesh Kotiyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 2(1)2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 244ASection 270ASection 5(2)(a)Section 6(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

Assessee was in India for less than 60 days during F.Y. 2019-20 and qualified as a Non-Resident in India as per Section 6(1) of the Act. The Assessee qualified as Tax Resident of Australia for the Tax Year ... appeal before the Tribunal. 21. Before us, it was submitted that, 1. The Assessee qualified as a Non -Resident in India as per Section 6(1) of the Act as he was present inIndia for less than 60 days during FY 2019-20. 2. During FY 2019-20, the Assessee

Somenath Duttagupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 627/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.627/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Somnath Duttagupta……..………….…................…...……………....Appellant A 168, Lake Gardens, Shivam Building Flat A2, Kolkata – 700045. [Pan: Afqpd5412G] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Balaji V, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 01, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.04.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Making/Confirming The Addition Of Salary Income Of Rs.47,26,133/- Received By The Assessee In India For The Services Rendered In Us. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Revised Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2019-20 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.191370/-.

Section 250Section 90(4)

last four years, due to which, residential status of the assessee in India could not be established as per the provisions of section 6(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. He, therefore, reported that in the absence of documents clarifying the stay of the assessee in India in last ... Assessing Officer. That the copy of passport was also submitted in this respect. The assessee further referring to the provisions of section 6(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, submitted that as per the said provisions if the assessee’s total stay in the relevant financial year is less

Anjali Puri, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Tax 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2107/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14C(3)Section 192Section 234BSection 270ASection 6(1)Section 9Section 90

Further, in the relevant F.Y., the total stay of the assessee in India was less than 60 days. Accordingly, by virtue of section 6(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee qualified as Non-Resident in India for the impugned Assessment Year. The said fact of the assessee

Akshay Rangraoji Umale, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 12 Pune, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 1428/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1428/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-19 Akshay Rangroji Umale A-402, Pride Panorama, Shivaji Hsg. Society, Sb Road, Pune-411016 Pan: Aampu7528K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Sonal Sonkavde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5Section 6(1)Section 90

case is that; the appellant is an individual assessee who for the year under consideration was resident in India in terms of section 6(1) of the Act, consequently his global income by virtue of section 5 of the Act was subjected to tax in India. The assessee filed

Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl /Jt/ACIT/NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1554/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 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 goes

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nishant Kanodia, Mumbai

ITA 2155/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh a/wFor Respondent: Shri S. Sribivasu
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 9A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Katni, Katni vs. M/S. Gajraj Mining Pvt. L:Td., Singrauli

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee is dismissed

ITA 27/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT(DR)
Section 2Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH ‘DB’, JABALPUR Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vs. Sh. Jaimal Singh, L/H. Sh. Prem Chand, Tarn Taran

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 82/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 263

10th Nov, 2006. Accordingly, since the residential status of late Prem Chand in India in FY 2006-07 was “Resident” in accordance with section 6(1) of the Act (as above), therefore the Capital gains tax in respect of the property at 22 Butts, Crescent, Hanworth, Fetham, London of late ... Since the residential status of late Prem Chand in India in FY 2006- 07 was “Resident” in accordance with section 6(1) of the Act, therefore the said credit entries totalling to £ 1371.82 were I.T.A. No. 82/Asr/2016 8 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 taxable in India in AY 2007-08 under the head

Tuv India Pvt Ltd Employees Group Superannation Scheme, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 1365/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaltuv India Pvt. Ltd Employees Group Superannuation Scheme, M/S. Kalyaniwall & Mistry Llp, Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaatt9836D ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Cpc Bengaluru ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule Ld. DR
Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(iii)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hind Aluminium Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1904/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

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 ... 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 goes

Relaxo Footwear Ltd., Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, National E- Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Relaxo Footwear Ltd., Vs Assessing Officer, Plot No.10, Aggarwal City Square, National E-Assessment Centre, Manglam Place Sec.3, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aaacr0259D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.D. Burman, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.590/Del/2021 For Ay 2016-17 Arises Out Of The Order Of The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(13) R.W.Ss 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.03.2021. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds Before Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Ao Was Justified In Making Transfer Pricing Adjustment Of Rs.91,04,673/- Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Drp In Respect Of The Specified Domestic Transactions.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.D. Burman, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 3Section 80I

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Worship Infraprojects Pvt Ltd(Previously Known As Om Metals Spml Infraprojects Pvt Ltd), Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, CIT &
Section 92C

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 ... 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

Worship Infraprojects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Ceircle-2, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, CIT &
Section 92C

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 ... 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

Tranztar Commercial Vehicle Applications Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6624/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40ASection 92BSection 92C

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 goes

The ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S Prakash Oils Ltd., Dhar

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 235/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

The Addl. CIT Range -1, Indore vs. M/S Prakash Oils Ltd., Dhar

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 227/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

The ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S Prakash Oils Ltd., Dhar

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 226/IND/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

Ananya Ajay Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC6 (4), Mumbai

ITA 6949/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6949/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6950/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 576/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 2Section 6(1)(b)Section 6(1)(c)

proceedings u/s 153A. Further he submitted that the 3 I.T.A. No. 6949/Mum/2019 Ananya Ajay Mittal Hon’ble bench while considering the applicability of section 6(1)(c) and failed to consider the Explanation 1 to section 6(1)(b) and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited (in Liquidation), Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.509/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. (In Liquidation) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1),Mumbai, 18Th Floor, Room No.1811, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2022 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2 2. Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That She Is Not Pressing Ground No.1 Of Appeal Challenging Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Ms.Jasmin AmalsadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 147

salaried employments in in India but then, because of their presence on account of employment, such persons will be residents in India under section 6(1)(a) anyway. That is an incongruous position. The law is being interpreted in a manner so as to make it redundant. It is only