← All Phrases

“Section 6(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 6Section 6(1)(c)23 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 6(1)(c) is Harigopal Singh v. CIT (258 ITR 85), cited in 203 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 6(1)(c)

Harigopal Singh v. CIT
258 ITR 85 · 2002 · High Court
203
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when an addition to income is made on an estimated basis without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not attracted to cases where income is assessed on an estimate basis.

CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
402 ITR 441 · 2018 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable as a deduction even if the expenditure for acquiring the capital asset was treated as application of income for charitable purposes. This does not constitute a double benefit.

ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd.
217 ITR 597 · 1996 · Supreme Court
180
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's belief that income has escaped assessment, leading to the reopening of an assessment, is a matter of subjective satisfaction. The materials available at the time of forming this belief do not need to conclusively prove the escapement of income.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices v. UOI
385 ITR 497 · 2016 · High Court
163
citing judgments

Orders passed under section 201(1) are barred by limitation if the prescribed period of limitation under section 201(3) had expired before the amendment by the Finance Act, 2014 came into force. The amended section 201(3) does not apply retrospectively.

Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT
57 ITR 532 · 1965 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

Not all receipts constitute income chargeable to tax. An Assessing Officer cannot reject a prima facie reasonable explanation on mere probabilities or arbitrary grounds, but must disprove facts.

National Textiles v. CIT
249 ITR 125 · 2001 · High Court
134
citing judgments

The levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires material evidence that the assessed amount does not represent the assessee's income and proof of conscious concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A penalty cannot be sustained merely because income is assessed on an estimation basis without positive evidence of concealment.

CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.
303 ITR 53 · 2008 · High Court
116
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is not leviable when an addition to income is made purely on an estimated basis, without any concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Judgments citing Section 6(1)(c)

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

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

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

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

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

Amit Mishra, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(1), Pune

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

ITA 892/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Kishore Phadke
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 6(1)(c)

salary income was made, without considering that, appellant holds the status of "Resident but Not Ordinary Resident" by fulfilling conditions of Section 6(1)(c) and 6(6)(a) of ITA, 1961. Hence, the income earned outside India by appellant being employed with V Ship Asia Group Pte Ltd. (Singapore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

ITA 1826/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. M.Mahadevan, No.24, Park Avenue Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. [Pan: Aajpm5888R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri G.Gireesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.C.Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Revenue For Ay-2013-14, Ay-2014-15 & 2019-20 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated Column-E, Herein Below:- S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F 1

For Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

business purposes and judicial forums in the various case laws have held that the word Employment in clause (a) of explanation-I to section 6(1)(c)is to be interpreted widely to include business or profession. Page - 12 - of 49 ITA Nos.1824, 1825 & 1826/Chny/2024 > The appellant is eligible ... claim the benefit as per clause (a) of explanation-I to section 6(1)(c) as he has not stayed for 182 days in any year. 7.15 Hence the view of the AO that the appellant is Resident for Tax Purposes as per section 6 (1) (a) or 6(1

Deputy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 1825/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G.Gireesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

business purposes and judicial forums in the various case laws have held that the word Employment in clause (a) of explanation-I to section 6(1)(c)is to be interpreted widely to include business or profession. Page - 12 - of 49 ITA Nos.1824, 1825 & 1826/Chny/2024  The appellant is eligible ... claim the benefit as per clause (a) of explanation-I to section 6(1)(c) as he has not stayed for 182 days in any year. 7.15 Hence the view of the AO that the appellant is Resident for Tax Purposes as per section 6 (1) (a) or 6(1

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 1824/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G.Gireesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

business purposes and judicial forums in the various case laws have held that the word Employment in clause (a) of explanation-I to section 6(1)(c)is to be interpreted widely to include business or profession. Page - 12 - of 49 ITA Nos.1824, 1825 & 1826/Chny/2024  The appellant is eligible ... claim the benefit as per clause (a) of explanation-I to section 6(1)(c) as he has not stayed for 182 days in any year. 7.15 Hence the view of the AO that the appellant is Resident for Tax Purposes as per section 6 (1) (a) or 6(1

Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2144/PUN/2024[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

para 7.3.8 of the order u/s 245D(4) the Settlement Commission has unequivocally held that the assessee is a resident as per section 6[1](c). 12. According to the Assessing Officer, had the search not taken place then his earning from the foreign country would not have been detected ... hold that the status of the applicant during A.Y. 2010-11 is that of a 'resident' in view of provisions contained in section 6(1)(c), with explanations (a) and (b), both being inapplicable on the facts of the case. In view of this finding, we are not dealing with

DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune vs. Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1307/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

para 7.3.8 of the order u/s 245D(4) the Settlement Commission has unequivocally held that the assessee is a resident as per section 6[1](c). 12. According to the Assessing Officer, had the search not taken place then his earning from the foreign country would not have been detected ... hold that the status of the applicant during A.Y. 2010-11 is that of a 'resident' in view of provisions contained in section 6(1)(c), with explanations (a) and (b), both being inapplicable on the facts of the case. In view of this finding, we are not dealing with

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)

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

Mitesh Vijay Gulati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int. Tax Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4227/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 6(1)Section 6(1)(c)

words "sixty days", occurring therein, the words "one hundred and eighty-two days" had been substituted; C. Interpretations of the provisions contained in section 6(1)(c) of the Act vis-à-vis facts of the case of the assessee: As per the Explanation 1(a) to section 6(1 ... less than 182 days and accordingly the citizen of India would be considered as non-resident in India as per the provisions of Section 6(1)(c) rws section 2(30) of the Act. However, as per details available with this office and as discussed herein above, the assessee

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

Thus, he claimed that his residential status during A.Y 2018-19 was Resident only, as per provisions of section 6(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. However, subsequently, in his response dated 19.03.2021, the assessee claimed that residential status for A.Y 2018-19 as Non-resident. Ld. AO noted ... India, since the Humble Appellant was stayed for Employment outside India for more than 182 days as per Explanation 1 to Section 6(1) C. That the Humble Appellant received Salary From Saket Gems (HK) Ltd to look after the work of their business in Hong Kong:- 1. The Humble

Manojkumar Madangopal Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 1105/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 112(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 6Section 6(1)(c)

Appellent was a resident of India under section 6 of the Act. The learned CITIA) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 6(1)(c) along with Explanation (s) were applicable as the Assessee had taken up employment with ignite Consulting, FZC, a UAE based company during

Raghav Agarwalla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, International Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4258/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Raghav Agarwalla, Ito, International Tax Ward 1(1)(1), 13/14, Buckley Court, Room No. 1817, 18Th Floor, Air India Vs. 5 Woodhouse Road, Colaba, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Ahbpa 8174 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal/Akhilesh Deshmukh
Section 1Section 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

covered by clause (a) to Explanation 1 to section the Appellant's case is covered by clause (a) to Explanation 1 to section 6(1)(c) of the Act.. The Appellant has wrongly been treated as Resident o 6(1)(c) of the Act.. The Appellant has wrongly ... India without appreciating that the clause (a) to Explanation 1 to section India without appreciating that the clause (a) to Explanation 1 to section 6(1)(c) provides that where a citizen of India, leaves India in any previous 6(1)(c) provides that where a citizen of India, leaves

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