← All Phrases

“Section 6(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 6Section 6(1)(a)16 judgments

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. TANMAI RAJ GOPAL, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1887/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 234DSection 250Section 6(1)(a)

test for the calendar year and that he stayed in US around 70 days in the year under consideration and as per the section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 any person will be considered as resident if he/she stays more than 182 days in India

NAYNA MUKESHKUMAR KOTECHA,DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statical purpose

ITA 187/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)(I/C), CHENNAI vs. PAUL DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1592/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & C.O Nos.52, 53, 54 & 55/Chny/2025 (Arises In Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Paul Dhinakaran, Tax, Vs. No.7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Central Circle-3(1)(I/C), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aabpd 8489M

For Appellant: Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 6Section 6(1)(c)

expenses, holding that the assessee was a Non- Resident for all the four years under consideration, in terms of Explanation 1(a) to section 6(1)(c) of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions towards personal gifts of Rs.3 ... employed with JCI (USA) during all 4 years and was thus non- resident in India as per the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 6(1) of the Act.” ITA Nos.1562, 1563,1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 C.O Nos.52 to 54/Chny/2025 Paul Dhinakaran :- 5 -: The Ld. AR therefore requested that the findings

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)(I/C), CHENNAI vs. PAUL DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1591/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & C.O Nos.52, 53, 54 & 55/Chny/2025 (Arises In Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Paul Dhinakaran, Tax, Vs. No.7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Central Circle-3(1)(I/C), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aabpd 8489M

For Appellant: Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 6Section 6(1)(c)

expenses, holding that the assessee was a Non- Resident for all the four years under consideration, in terms of Explanation 1(a) to section 6(1)(c) of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions towards personal gifts of Rs.3 ... employed with JCI (USA) during all 4 years and was thus non- resident in India as per the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 6(1) of the Act.” ITA Nos.1562, 1563,1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 C.O Nos.52 to 54/Chny/2025 Paul Dhinakaran :- 5 -: The Ld. AR therefore requested that the findings

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)(I/C), CHENNAI vs. PAUL DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1563/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & C.O Nos.52, 53, 54 & 55/Chny/2025 (Arises In Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Paul Dhinakaran, Tax, Vs. No.7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Central Circle-3(1)(I/C), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aabpd 8489M

For Appellant: Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 6Section 6(1)(c)

expenses, holding that the assessee was a Non- Resident for all the four years under consideration, in terms of Explanation 1(a) to section 6(1)(c) of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions towards personal gifts of Rs.3 ... employed with JCI (USA) during all 4 years and was thus non- resident in India as per the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 6(1) of the Act.” ITA Nos.1562, 1563,1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 C.O Nos.52 to 54/Chny/2025 Paul Dhinakaran :- 5 -: The Ld. AR therefore requested that the findings

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)(I/C), CHENNAI vs. PAUL DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1562/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & C.O Nos.52, 53, 54 & 55/Chny/2025 (Arises In Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Paul Dhinakaran, Tax, Vs. No.7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Central Circle-3(1)(I/C), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aabpd 8489M

For Appellant: Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 6Section 6(1)(c)

expenses, holding that the assessee was a Non- Resident for all the four years under consideration, in terms of Explanation 1(a) to section 6(1)(c) of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions towards personal gifts of Rs.3 ... employed with JCI (USA) during all 4 years and was thus non- resident in India as per the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 6(1) of the Act.” ITA Nos.1562, 1563,1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 C.O Nos.52 to 54/Chny/2025 Paul Dhinakaran :- 5 -: The Ld. AR therefore requested that the findings

KIZHAKETHIL PRASAD,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148

assessee in relation to its employment. We observe that these observations of the AO are irrelevant in view of the provisions of section 6(1)(a) of the Act which are reproduced herein for the sake of reference:- “Resident in India. Section 6. For the purposes of this Act, -- (1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-\nITA Nos\nAssessment\nResult\nYear\nPartly allowed

ITA 1826/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2019-20

nhad stayed in India for more than 182 days during AYs 2011-12, 2013-14,\n2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, thereby satisfying Section 6(1)(a) and so he\nis a resident in India as per Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).\nFurther, he had stayed in India ... business purposes and judicial\nforums in the various case laws have held that the word Employment in\nclause (a) of explanation-I to section 6(1)(c)is to be interpreted widely to\ninclude business or profession.\nPage - 12 - of 49\nITA Nos.1824, 1825 & 1826/Chny/2024\n> The appellant is eligible

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

stayed in India for more than 182 days during AYs 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, thereby satisfying Section 6(1)(a) and so he is a resident in India as per Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). Further, he had stayed in India ... business purposes and judicial forums in the various case laws have held that the word Employment in clause (a) of explanation-I to section 6(1)(c)is to be interpreted widely to include business or profession. Page - 12 - of 49 ITA Nos.1824, 1825 & 1826/Chny/2024  The appellant is eligible

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

stayed in India for more than 182 days during AYs 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, thereby satisfying Section 6(1)(a) and so he is a resident in India as per Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). Further, he had stayed in India ... business purposes and judicial forums in the various case laws have held that the word Employment in clause (a) of explanation-I to section 6(1)(c)is to be interpreted widely to include business or profession. Page - 12 - of 49 ITA Nos.1824, 1825 & 1826/Chny/2024  The appellant is eligible

HAVELI TALUKA VEEJ KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

behalf of the Department. Section 5(b) defines \"banking\" to mean\nacceptance of deposits for the purpose of lending or investment\nwhereas, Section 6(1) states, inter alia, that in addition to the business of\nbanking, a banking company may engage in the following forms of business\nas enumerated ... Section 6(1)(a) to (o). Therefore, there is a clear dichotomy\nbetween the business of banking and other forms of business. To take an\nexample, under Section 6(1)(a) providing of safe deposit vaults to the\ncustomer is mentioned. In the case of Mehsana District Central Co-operative

PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KANYA KUMARI PROPERTIES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2027/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

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)

erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant is a fact that the Appellant is a Non Resident of India as per section 6(1)(a) of the Act as he was in India Resident of India as per section 6(1 ... India Resident of India as per section 6(1)(a) of the Act as he was in India during the Previous Year relevant to impugned Assessment Year for less during the Previous Year relevant to impugned Assessment Year for less during the Previous Year relevant to impugned Assessment Year

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD., PATIALA

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

ITA 737/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)

held that the locker rent received by the assessee was a part of ordinary banking business as shown by section 6(1)(a) of the Banking (Regulation) Act, 1949 and, therefore, the income derived by the assessee bank from hiring out of safe deposit vaults was income from banking business

BARCLAYS CAPITAL MAURITIUS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION),MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) (IT)-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.509/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. (In Liquidation) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1),Mumbai, 18Th Floor, Room No.1811, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2022 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2 2. Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That She Is Not Pressing Ground No.1 Of Appeal Challenging Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Ms.Jasmin AmalsadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 147

salaried employments in in India but then, because of their presence on account of employment, such persons will be residents in India under section 6(1)(a) anyway. That is an incongruous position. The law is being interpreted in a manner so as to make it redundant. It is only

BARCLAYS CAPITAL MAURITIUS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , IT 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7209/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.7209/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2016-17) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1) 4Th Floor, Room No.427, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate With Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala & Shri Harshit Sangoi. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Milind S. Chavan & Nihar Samal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate with Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala &For Respondent: S/Shri Milind S. Chavan & Nihar Samal
Section 143(3)

salaried employments in in India but then, because of their presence on account of employment, such persons will be residents in India under section 6(1)(a) anyway. That is an incongruous position. The law is being interpreted in a manner so as to make it redundant. It is only