← All Phrases

“Section 6(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 6Section 6(6)9 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 6(6) is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 6(6)

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd.
349 ITR 98 · 2012 · High Court
818
citing judgments

When computing deduction under Section 10A, if communication or telecommunication expenses are excluded from export turnover, they must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain consistency and apply the ordinary meaning of 'turnover' in context.

Judgments citing Section 6(6)

Rima Jayant Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 & 2 of the

ITA 3741/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing)

Section 24Section 254(1)Section 57Section 6(6)

returned back to India. During the said year, the residential status of assessee was that resident but “not ordinary resident” as per section 6(6) of the Income Tax Act (Act). The total duration of stay of assessee from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2012 was 599 days only. Thus, during ... subject assessment year, the assessee fulfilled the conditions to be qualified as resident but not an ordinary resident as per section 6(6) Act. The assessee while filing her return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.07.2013, due to ignorance and by mistake reflected her residential status

Satish Narayan Tarale, Belgavi vs. Intl.Taxation Ward, Panaji

ITA 55/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 055/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satish Narayan Tarale 35, Laxmi Narayan Niwas, 2Nd Stage, Hanuman Nagar, Belgaum-590001. Pan : Afkpt0032Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenges Din & Order No Itba/Ast/F/144/2024- 25/1072202908(1) Dt. 15/01/2025 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] U/S 144 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Anent To Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 253(6)Section 3Section 4Section 6(6)Section 69A

individual and for the purpose of taxation under the Act, the assessee was ‘Non-Resident’ within the meaning of section 6(6) of the Act. The assessee did not file return of income as required u/s 139(1) of the Act. Upon receipt of information that, the assessee

Pritpal Singh Basan, Jharkhand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeal), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 957/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 6(6)

appeal. Brief facts of the case: 1.1 The assessee earning income by way of salary from a foreign shipping company. As per Section 6(6) the residential status of assessee is NRI in Assessment year 2012-13. The income earned by the ways of salary is accrued

Pritpal Singh Basan, Jamshedpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1003/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 6(6)

appeal. Brief facts of the case: 1.1 The assessee earning income by way of salary from a foreign shipping company. As per Section 6(6) the residential status of assessee is NRI in Assessment year 2012-13. The income earned by the ways of salary is accrued

Vamsi Krishna Ayyalasomayajula, Telangana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1469/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Vaidehi G., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 6(1)Section 90(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Dheeraj Tolaram Talreja, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3359/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Dheeraj Tolaram Income Tax Officer, Talreja International Taxation, A – 605, Ward 4(1)(1) Oberoi Esquire, Air India Building, Oberoi Garden City, Nariman Point, Vs. Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400021. Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Adopt3185J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sant - Addl. CIT D.R
Section 139(1)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 5(1)Section 6(1)Section 6(6)Section 64

March 2019) and accordingly during the said assessment year the appellant qualified as a Resident but not Ordinarily Resident (RNOR) as per section 6(6) of the Act. Accordingly, as per section 5(1) of the Act in case of ‘RNOR’, income received or deemed to be received

Shri Suresh George, Alappuzha vs. The ADIT International Taxation, Thiruvananthapuram-3, Thiruvanathapuram

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

ITA 794/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysuresh George Asstt. Director Of Income Tax Kurichyiel House International Taxation Payippad, Harippad Vs. Thiruvananthapuram Alappuzha 690 556 [Pan:Affpg5853B]

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194JSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Aby T.Varkey, Judicial

Naveen Virendrakumar Gupta, Thane vs. ITO (It) 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2476/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
Section 15Section 6Section 9

hence assessee is treated as 'Resident but Not ordinarily Resident" within the meaning of sub section 6(6)(a) of I.T. ACT 1961 and all other provisions of the I.T. Act 1961 will be applied to the facts of the case accordingly. It is also held that disclosing ... changed with the change in residential status of the assessee being treated as that of "Resident but not ordinarily resident "under sub section 6(6) of the IT. Act 1961 instead of the "Non-Resident" and hence the facts of the case will be re-examined in light

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mr.Sakakibara Yutaka

ITA - 111 / 2006HC Delhi03 Aug 2012
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 17(2)Section 5(1)(c)Section 6(6)Section 90(2)

also the rented accommodation. The reasoning adopted by the ITAT was that in terms of Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 6(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the assessee was a person “not ordinarily resident” in India and that the salary earned in Japan ... assessee before the authorities below as well as before us, the residential status of the assessee as per the provisions of Section 6(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was “not ordinarily resident” for the year under consideration and this position has not been disputed either