← 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. M/S Wickwood Development Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 3354/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Respondent: Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &
Section 124Section 124(4)Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Rolland Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 3353/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No.3348/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Ita No.3353/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Rolland Enterprises Ltd., Central Circle-19, C/O Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Adv. New Delhi C-56, Lfg, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Co No.352/Del/2015 (In Ita No.3348/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08) Co No.357/Del/2015 (In Ita No.3353/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13) Rolland Enterprises Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Adv. Central Circle-19, C-56, Lfg, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan : Aaccr7403D Assessees By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca, Pranav Yadav, Adv., Nippun Mittal, Ca & Ms Anjali Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr & Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.12.2023 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvii, New Delhi.

For Respondent: Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &
Section 124Section 124(4)Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Rolland Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 3348/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No.3348/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Ita No.3353/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Rolland Enterprises Ltd., Central Circle-19, C/O Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Adv. New Delhi C-56, Lfg, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Co No.352/Del/2015 (In Ita No.3348/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08) Co No.357/Del/2015 (In Ita No.3353/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13) Rolland Enterprises Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Adv. Central Circle-19, C-56, Lfg, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan : Aaccr7403D Assessees By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca, Pranav Yadav, Adv., Nippun Mittal, Ca & Ms Anjali Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr & Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.12.2023 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvii, New Delhi.

For Respondent: Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &
Section 124Section 124(4)Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Iservices Investments Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 5397/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &
Section 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 ... 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. I Services Investment Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 3130/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Respondent: Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &
Section 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 ... 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. I Services Investment Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 3129/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Respondent: Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &
Section 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 ... 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

Sage International Inc., Usa vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2214/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sage International Inc., Vs Acit, 105, Townline Road, 2 Pmb 332, Circle 3(1)(2), Vernon Hills, Foreign United International States, Usa. Taxation, Delhi. Pan-Aaycs9212R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca Respondent By Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19 .

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 4Section 90

consideration, the assessee company suo-moto treated itself as resident in India by applying the place of Effective Management (POEM) rules as per section 6(3)(ii) of the Act. He further reiterated the submissions dated 24.02.2023. For the sake of clarity, the submissions are reproduced as under:- Brief Facts ... foreign companies which become resident in India due to the introduction of the Place of Effective Management (POEM) provisions as per the section 6(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The language of the notification, overrides the provisions of the Income Tax Act including the provisions

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alchem International Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, following the same order we dismiss the appeals of the revenue and cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 2828/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri [Dr.] Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh [CIT] - D. R
Section 6(3)(ii)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alchem International Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, following the same order we dismiss the appeals of the revenue and cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 2827/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri [Dr.] Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh [CIT] - D. R
Section 6(3)(ii)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alchem International Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, following the same order we dismiss the appeals of the revenue and cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 2826/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri [Dr.] Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh [CIT] - D. R
Section 6(3)(ii)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alchem International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2825/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri [Dr.] Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh [CIT] - D. R
Section 6(3)(ii)Section 69C

different entities and control and management of AIHK is being done wholly from India is not established. Therefore, the provisions of section 6(3)(ii) are not applicable looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and law. 14.15—It is also to be mentioned that ... substantiated that how this profit of AIHK, even though being treated as resident in India under section 6(3)(ii),can be clubbed and added in the hands of the appellant. Simply because it is 100% subsidiary of appellant, all of its profit cannot be clubbed in the hands

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

Whether the ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessee is not a resident of India within the meaning of Section 6 (3) (ii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and whether the said finding of the ITAT is not also vitiated and perverse as it ignores relevant ... companies? 22. The first question that Court proposes to answer is whether the Assessee is a resident of India within the meaning of Section 6(3) (ii) of the Act, since this would be crucial for determining some of the other issues that arise in the case. 23. In terms

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

Whether the ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessee is not a resident of India within the meaning of Section 6 (3) (ii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and whether the said finding of the ITAT is not also vitiated and perverse as it ignores relevant ... companies? 22. The first question that Court proposes to answer is whether the Assessee is a resident of India within the meaning of Section 6(3) (ii) of the Act, since this would be crucial for determining some of the other issues that arise in the case. 23. In terms

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

Whether the ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessee is not a resident of India within the meaning of Section 6 (3) (ii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and whether the said finding of the ITAT is not also vitiated and perverse as it ignores relevant ... companies? 22. The first question that Court proposes to answer is whether the Assessee is a resident of India within the meaning of Section 6(3) (ii) of the Act, since this would be crucial for determining some of the other issues that arise in the case. 23. In terms

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

Whether the ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessee is not a resident of India within the meaning of Section 6 (3) (ii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and whether the said finding of the ITAT is not also vitiated and perverse as it ignores relevant ... companies? 22. The first question that Court proposes to answer is whether the Assessee is a resident of India within the meaning of Section 6(3) (ii) of the Act, since this would be crucial for determining some of the other issues that arise in the case. 23. In terms