← 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

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

company is said to be a resident in India in any previous year, if- (i) it is an Indian company; or (ii) its place of effective management, in that year, is in India. Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause

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

company is said to be a resident in India in any previous year, if- (i) it is an Indian company; or (ii) its place of effective management, in that year, is in India. Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause “place of effective management” means a place where key management

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

company is said to be a resident in India in any previous year, if- (i) it is an Indian company; or (ii) its place of effective management, in that year, is in India. Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause “place of effective management” means a place where key management

Pradeep Wig, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 406/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Assessment Order dated 31-3-2021 and/or in the Remand Report dated 13-7-2022. He has further submitted that the Place of Effective Management (POEM) of the said foreign company is also situated outside India because of which, the company is a non-resident in India within the meaning

DCIT(It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bay Lines ( Mauritius), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 4859/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 44B

behalf of non-resident principal. Whereas in the cross objection the assessee stated that Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that place of effective management of assessee company is neither in Mauritius nor in India but in the third Country and therefore, assessee is not entitled to benefit ... assessee that, assessee has carried out its activities from UAE and therefore, assessee was required to explain as to how the place of effective management is situated in Mauritius in order to be entitled to the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA. AO also admitted that there is no change

DCIT(It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bay Lines ( Mauritius), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 4858/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
Section 44B

behalf of non-resident principal. Whereas in the cross objection the assessee stated that 1d. CIT(A) has erred in holding that place of effective management of assessee company is neither in Mauritius nor in India but in the third Country and therefore, assessee is not entitled to benefit ... assessee that, assessee has carried out its activities from UAE and therefore, assessee was required to explain as to how the place of effective management is situated in Mauritius in order to be entitled to the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA. AO also admitted that there is no change

Mohit Gupta HUF, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44(6), Delhi

ITA 2511/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 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

Chetna Sundaram, Janak Puri Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 70(1), Delhi

ITA 2512/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

Devender Kumar, Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward 1, Rohtak

ITA 2509/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Mehta, New Delhi

ITA 271/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

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

Paramasivam Mahalingam, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

ITA 281/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 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

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)

having his permanent home in India, as well as his place of effective having his permanent home in India, as well as his place of effective management in India, should be held as management in India, should be held as a Resident of India during the a Resident of India

General Motors Overses Disribution Coporation, Usa vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2360/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 General Motors Company Usa, Vs Acit, Circle International 1209 Orange Street, Taxation 1(3)(1), Wilmington Delaware New Delhi – 110 002 United States, Zip Code - 19801 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 General Motors Overseas Vs Acit, Circle International Distribution Corporation, Usa Taxation 1(3)(1), 2711, Centreville Roadnew Castle New Delhi – 110 002 County, Wilmington, Usa-19808 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ss Tomar, Adv. & Shri Sumeet Hemkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri VishalFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 148Section 234BSection 234c

qualifies as a 'person', and (b) it is ʻliable to tax in the resident State by reason of domicile, resident, citizenship, place of effective management, place of incorporation or any other criterion of similar nature. It is further stated that he term 'person' is defined under the India

General Motors Company, Usa vs. ACIT Circlr International Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 General Motors Company Usa, Vs Acit, Circle International 1209 Orange Street, Taxation 1(3)(1), Wilmington Delaware New Delhi – 110 002 United States, Zip Code - 19801 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 General Motors Overseas Vs Acit, Circle International Distribution Corporation, Usa Taxation 1(3)(1), 2711, Centreville Roadnew Castle New Delhi – 110 002 County, Wilmington, Usa-19808 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ss Tomar, Adv. & Shri Sumeet Hemkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri VishalFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 148Section 234BSection 234c

qualifies as a 'person', and (b) it is ʻliable to tax in the resident State by reason of domicile, resident, citizenship, place of effective management, place of incorporation or any other criterion of similar nature. It is further stated that he term 'person' is defined under the India

M/S Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 685/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.685/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Regen Renewable Energy Acit बनाम Generation Global Limited International Taxation New No.1, Pulla Avenue, / Vs. Circle-2(1), Chennai. Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcr-0685-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca) – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 234B

secretarial service which incidentally is a director in the assessee company. * There were no other significant business expenses incurred by the assessee. * The place of effective management and control of Assessee is in fact in India. * The assessee has paid almost the full amount of income received to other persons

M/S Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 684/CHNY/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.685/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Regen Renewable Energy Acit बनाम Generation Global Limited International Taxation New No.1, Pulla Avenue, / Vs. Circle-2(1), Chennai. Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcr-0685-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca) – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 234B

secretarial service which incidentally is a director in the assessee company. * There were no other significant business expenses incurred by the assessee. * The place of effective management and control of Assessee is in fact in India. * The assessee has paid almost the full amount of income received to other persons

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

resident of both Contracting States, then it shall be deemed to be a resident solely of the Contracting State in which its place of effective management is situated.” 7. During F.Y. 2019-20, the Assessee continued to receive salary income in India for exercising employment in Australia and services rendered

Superb Mind Holding Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

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 1 st April 2017 in a company which

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. 9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4600/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

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. 41 [ 3A. Gains from the alienation of shares acquired on or after 1st April 2017 in a company which

9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(1), Mumbai

ITA 3606/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

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. 41 [ 3A. Gains from the alienation of shares acquired on or after 1st April 2017 in a company which