← All Phrases

“place of effective management”

International TaxSection 6(3)Section 6(3)84 judgments

The decision most relied on for place of effective management is M/s Abbey Business Service (India) Private Limited v. DCIT (23 Taxmann.com 346), cited in 33 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on place of effective management

M/s Abbey Business Service (India) Private Limited v. DCIT
23 Taxmann.com 346 · 2012 · ITAT
33
citing judgments

A jurisdictional ITAT ruling in favour of the taxpayer, later upheld by the Karnataka High Court, is considered persuasive in similar cases, including those referred to a Special Bench of the ITAT.

Judgments citing place of effective management

Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Delhi

ITA 2714/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Delhi

ITA 2713/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 2512/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 2511/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Delhi vs. Bhushan Dua, New Delhi

ITA 2510/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Bhushan Dua, New Delhi

ITA 2509/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT/DCIT, International Taxation-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 366/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.366/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 V. Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of #25-60, Tong Eng Building, 101, Cecil Income Tax, International Street, Singapore 069533. Taxation, Dcit, Intl. Tax 1(2), C/O. Bothra Shipping Services Private Chennai. Limited, Vasundhara, 9Th Floor, Unit-A, 2/7 Sarat Bose Road, L.R. Sarani S.O., Kalkata, West Bengal 700 020. [Pan: Aadcj0165F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 44B

Tong Eng Building, Singapore 069533. During the year under consideration and in all the previous years since its incorporation, the assessee’s place of effective management was in Singapore. Since, the assessee is a tax resident of Singapore as per Article 1 read with Article 4 of the Double

Jawaharlal Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

from India, because the said entity has neither been incorporated nor has any connection in India nor has any business connection or any place of effective management is situated in India. Further, nothing has been brought on record in „reasons recorded‟ or there is any material on record that assessee

Sham Gulabrai Tulsyani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 483/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal & Akash KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “I” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH

Naraindas Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 464/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

from India, because the said entity has neither been incorporated nor has any connection in India nor has any business connection or any place of effective management is situated in India. Further, nothing has been brought on record in „reasons recorded‟ or there is any material on record that assessee

Naraindas Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 463/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

from India, because the said entity has neither been incorporated nor has any connection in India nor has any business connection or any place of effective management is situated in India. Further, nothing has been brought on record in „reasons recorded‟ or there is any material on record that assessee

Partab Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 449/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

from India, because the said entity has neither been incorporated nor has any connection in India nor has any business connection or any place of effective management is situated in India. Further, nothing has been brought on record in „reasons recorded‟ or there is any material on record that assessee

Partab Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 448/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal & Akash KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “I” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH

Mr. 3 Sigma Global Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the gain arising from the transfer of Derivatives cannot be taxed in India and the addition made in this regard stands deleted. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is hereb...

ITA 1130/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Bhaumik Goda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

made any investigation into the situs of Board of Directors of the company, the location of AGMs, location of investment decisions, place of effective management, situs of decisions of the company etc. The Assessing Officer has only applied the "beneficial ownership" (BO) concept in a blanket manner. Even after applying ... movable property pertaining to the operation of such ships and aircraft, shall be taxable only in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated. 3A. Gains from the alienation of shares acquired on or after 1st April 2017 in a company which

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)

established through various judicial precedents on this aspect as well as provisions of memorandum of Finance Bill, 2015 introducing the provisions of place of effective management; 4. was not justified in ignoring the fact that control and management of the Appellant was with the board of directors of the Appellant ... Section 6(3) ECL of the Indian Income Tax Act, Article 4(3) of India Para 44-47 (page 173-175) Mauritius Treaty, place of effective management, ECOM circular 1 of 2023 clarifying that in the case of findings of facts by the assessing officer establishing dual residence, place

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)

established through various judicial precedents on this aspect as well as provisions of memorandum of Finance Bill, 2015 introducing the provisions of place of effective management; 4. was not justified in ignoring the fact that control and management of the Appellant was with the board of directors of the Appellant ... Section 6(3)| ECL of the Indian Income Tax Act, Article 4(3) of India| Para 44-47 (page 173-175) Mauritius Treaty, place of effective management,] ECOM circular 1 of 2023 clarifying that in the case of findings of facts by the assessing officer establishing dual residence, place

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6079/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.5692 और5693/दिल्ली/2019 (नि.व. 2007-08 और2008-09)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Deepesh Jain, Advocates andFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 195Section 40

admittedly not the assessee's case that the assessee -companies are residents of Netherlands. Similarly, it is also not in dispute that ‘place of effective management' is United Kingdom and the case of the assessee-companies cannot even be covered by this criterion. That leaves us only with 'any other ... Nos.5962 &6078/Del/2019(AY 2007-08) ITA Nos.5963& 6079/Del/2019 (AY 2008-09) genus of three earlier expressions i.e. domicile, residence and place of effective management. The key question, therefore, is whether ‘earning of dividends earned from the Netherlands' can be said to belong to the same genus to which 'domicile, residence

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6078/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.5692 और5693/दिल्ली/2019 (नि.व. 2007-08 और2008-09)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Deepesh Jain, Advocates andFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 195Section 40

admittedly not the assessee's case that the assessee -companies are residents of Netherlands. Similarly, it is also not in dispute that ‘place of effective management' is United Kingdom and the case of the assessee-companies cannot even be covered by this criterion. That leaves us only with 'any other ... Nos.5962 &6078/Del/2019(AY 2007-08) ITA Nos.5963& 6079/Del/2019 (AY 2008-09) genus of three earlier expressions i.e. domicile, residence and place of effective management. The key question, therefore, is whether ‘earning of dividends earned from the Netherlands' can be said to belong to the same genus to which 'domicile, residence

Bharti Airtel Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5963/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.5692 और5693/िद"ी /2019(िन.व. 2007-08 और2008-09)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Deepesh Jain, Advocates and Shri Shivam Gupta, Chartered AccoFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 195Section 40

admittedly not the assessee’s case that the assessee -companies are residents of Netherlands. Similarly, it is also not in dispute that ‘place of effective management’ is United Kingdom and the case of the assessee-companies cannot even be covered by this criterion. That leaves us only with ‘any other ... 6078/Del/2019(AY 2007-08) ITA Nos. 5963& 6079/Del/2019 (AY 2008-09) genus of three earlier expressions i.e. domicile, residence and place of effective management. The key question, therefore, is whether ‘earning of dividends earned from the Netherlands’ can be said to belong to the same genus to which ‘domicile, residence

Bharti Airtel Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5962/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.5692 और5693/दिल्ली/2019 (नि.व. 2007-08 और2008-09)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Deepesh Jain, Advocates andFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 195Section 40

admittedly not the assessee's case that the assessee -companies are residents of Netherlands. Similarly, it is also not in dispute that 'place of effective management' is United Kingdom and the case of the assessee-companies are not even covered by this criterion. That leaves us only with 'any other ... criterion of similar nature' referred to in the treaty has to be restricted to genus of three earlier expressions i.e. domicile, residence and place of effective management. The key question, therefore, is whether ‘earning of dividends earned from the Netherlands' can be said to belong to the same genus