← All Phrases

“Section 6(3)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 6Section 6(3)(ii)55 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 6(3)(ii) is CIT, Gujarat II v. Surendra Gulab Chand Modi (140 ITR 517), cited in 88 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 6(3)(ii)

CIT, Gujarat II v. Surendra Gulab Chand Modi
140 ITR 517 · 1983 · High Court
88
citing judgments

Protective assessments should not be deleted or disposed of by lower authorities, but rather allowed to remain in effect until the related substantive assessment proceedings attain finality before the High Court or Supreme Court.

ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd.
348 ITR 299 · 2012 · Supreme Court
76
citing judgments

Reopening assessment based on a mere re-look of accounts already furnished and assessed under section 143(3) is not permissible if there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure. The assessment cannot be reopened on the ground that income has escaped assessment merely by re-examining previously filed accounts.

Sharp Business System v. CIT III
27 Taxmann.com 50 · 2012 · High Court
53
citing judgments

A non-compete fee, being a capital expenditure, is not allowable as a deduction from income and does not qualify for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan
247 ITR 260 · 2001 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Salary received by a non-resident for services rendered outside India accrues outside India and is not taxable in India. Only salary earned for work performed in India is regarded as income arising in India and is taxable.

Sharp Business System v. CIT
254 CTR 233 · 2012 · High Court
50
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on a non-compete fee as it constitutes an intangible asset, even if the right acquired cannot be transferred, provided it is treated as part of a block of assets.

Dy CIT v. Selvel Advertising (P) Ltd.
58 Taxmann.com 196 · 2015 · ITAT
49
citing judgments

An assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on a road constructed and operated on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis, treating it as an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

Loyal Motor Service Co. Ltd. v. CIT
14 ITR 647 · 1946 · High Court
48
citing judgments

A payment of bonus or commission is allowable as a business deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) unless it constitutes a distribution of profits or dividends, thereby distinguishing payments genuinely for services from those merely intended to escape taxation.

United Breweries Ltd. v. ACIT
76 Taxmann.com 103 · 2016 · ITAT
41
citing judgments

Depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation is not admissible to the amalgamated company if no goodwill was admitted in the hands of the amalgamating company, applying Explanation 7 to Section 43(1) and the Sixth Proviso to Section 32(1)(ii).

Judgments citing Section 6(3)(ii)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and consequently the appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismissed

ITA 4654/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Respondent: Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that assessee company is not resident in terms of provisions under section 6(3)(ii) of the I.T. Act for 2 CO No. 397/Del/2015 I Energizer Holdings Ltd. . the purpose of tax liability whereas on the basis

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3633/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

That the Ld. Assessing Officer misdirected himself by alleging 'Place of Effective Management' (POEM) in India, whereas the unamended section 6(3)(ii) applied for A.Y. 2015-16, thereby rendering the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer ultra vires to the provisions of the Act. 3. That the Appellant company

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3632/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

That the Ld. Assessing Officer misdirected himself by alleging 'Place of Effective Management' (POEM) in India, whereas the unamended section 6(3)(ii) applied for A.Y. 2015-16, thereby rendering the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer ultra vires to the provisions of the Act. 3. That the Appellant company

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5335/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that assessee company is not resident in terms of provisions under section 6(3)(ii) of the 1.T. Act for the purpose of tax liability whereas on the basis of seized documents/e-mails and various statements ... Revenue challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that assessee is not a resident in terms of provisions of Section 6(3) (ii) of the Act for the purpose of tax liability and further challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the assessment

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5334/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that assessee company is not resident in terms of provisions under section 6(3)(ii) of the 1.T. Act for the purpose of tax liability whereas on the basis of seized documents/e-mails and various statements ... Revenue challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that assessee is not a resident in terms of provisions of Section 6(3) (ii) of the Act for the purpose of tax liability and further challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the assessment

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Eicr (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5333/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that assessee company is not resident in terms of provisions under section 6(3)(ii) of the 1.T. Act for the purpose of tax liability whereas on the basis of seized documents/e-mails and various statements ... Revenue challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that assessee is not a resident in terms of provisions of Section 6(3) (ii) of the Act for the purpose of tax liability and further challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the assessment

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Eicr (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5332/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that assessee company is not resident in terms of provisions under section 6(3)(ii) of the I.T. Act for the purpose of tax liability whereas on the basis of seized documents/e-mails and various statements of Sh. Ajay ... Revenue challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that assessee is not a resident in terms of provisions of Section 6(3)(ii) of the Act for the purpose of tax liability and further challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the assessment

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Bennett Williamson Engineers Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4056/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that assessee company is not resident in terms of provisions under section 6(3)(ii) of the I.T. Act for the purpose of tax liability whereas on the basis of seized documents/e-mails and various statements of Sh. Ajay ... Revenue challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that assessee is not a resident in terms of provisions of Section 6(3) (ii) of the Act for the purpose of tax liability and further challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the assessment

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Bennett Williamson Engineers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4055/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that assessee company is not resident in terms of provisions under section 6(3)(ii) of the 1.T. Act for the purpose of tax liability whereas on the basis of seized documents/e-mails and various statements ... Revenue challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that assessee is not a resident in terms of provisions of Section 6(3) (ii) of the Act for the purpose of tax liability and further challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the assessment

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Gainway Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4007/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Gainway Holdings Ltd. Vs Central Circle-19, Room C/O. Sandeep Chilana, Advocate No. 362, Ara Centre, E-2, Chilana & Chilana Law Offices, Jhandewalan Extension, Advoate For The Respondent C- New Delhi 56, Lfg, Jangpura Extention, New Delhi-110014 Pan: Aafcg6056L Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that assessee company is not resident in terms of provisions under section 6(3)(ii) of the 1.T. Act for the purpose of tax liability whereas on the basis of seized documents/e-mails and various statements ... Revenue challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that assessee is not a resident in terms of provisions of Section 6(3) (ii) of the Act for the purpose of tax liability and further challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the assessment

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Gynia Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3916/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that assessee company is not resident in terms of provisions under section 6(3)(ii) of the 1.T. Act for the purpose of tax liability whereas on the basis of seized documents/e-mails and various statements ... Revenue challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that assessee is not a resident in terms of provisions of Section 6(3) (ii) of the Act for the purpose of tax liability and further challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the assessment

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Gynia Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3915/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that assessee company is not resident in terms of provisions under section 6(3)(ii) of the 1.T. Act for the purpose of tax liability whereas on the basis of seized documents/e-mails and various statements ... Revenue challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that assessee is not a resident in terms of provisions of Section 6(3) (ii) of the Act for the purpose of tax liability and further challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the assessment

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Gynia Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3914/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that assessee company is not resident in terms of provisions under section 6(3)(ii) of the 1.T. Act for the purpose of tax liability whereas on the basis of seized documents/e-mails and various statements ... Revenue challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that assessee is not a resident in terms of provisions of Section 6(3) (ii) of the Act for the purpose of tax liability and further challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the assessment

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Focusoil Inc., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3911/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs Focusoil Inc. Central Circle-19, Room C/O. Sandeep Chilana, Advocate No. 362, Ara Centre, E-2, Chilana & Chilana Law Offices, Jhandewalan Extension, Advoate For The Respondent C- New Delhi 56, Lfg, Jangpura Extention, New Delhi-110014 Pan: Aaccf3908K Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that assessee company is not resident in terms of provisions under section 6(3)(ii) of the 1.T. Act for the purpose of tax liability whereas on the basis of seized documents/e-mails and various statements ... Revenue challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that assessee is not a resident in terms of provisions of Section 6(3) (ii) of the Act for the purpose of tax liability and further challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the assessment

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)

situated wholly in India: a. Residential status of an assessee is required to be determined every year 32. The Assessee submits that under section 6(3)(ii) of the Act (as applicable for the year under consideration), a company which is not incorporated in India is considered ... Assessee based on events and documents pertaining to earlier years which is wholly incorrect and contrary to the express provisions of section 6(3)(ii) of the Act which require that the residential status is to be ascertained basis the events pertaining to the previous year. 34. In this regard

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)

Nos.339 & 340/Del/2022 a. Residential status of an_assessee_is required to be determined every year The Assessee submits that under section 6(3)(ii) of the Act (as applicable for the year under consideration), a company which is not incorporated in India is considered to be a resident of India ... Assessee based on events and documents pertaining to earlier years which is wholly incorrect and contrary to the express provisions of section 6(3)(ii) of the Act which require that the residential status is to be ascertained basis the events pertaining to the previous year. In this regard, reference

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(e)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

assessment order by holding that the Appellant is a resident of India during the year under consideration in terms of section 6(3)(ii) of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP has grossly erred in holding that the Appellant

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commission of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2791/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

assessment order by holding that the Appellant is a resident of India during the year under consideration in terms of section 6(3)(ii) of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP has grossly erred in holding that the Appellant

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2357/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

assessment order by holding that the Appellant is a resident of India during the year under consideration in terms of section 6(3)(ii) of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP has grossly erred in holding that the Appellant

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2355/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

assessment order by holding that the Appellant is a resident of India during the year under consideration in terms of section 6(3)(ii) of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP has grossly erred in holding that the Appellant