← All Phrases

“Section 6(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 6Section 6(3)99 judgments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIVEK GUPTA, KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 1592/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 250Section 68

entities, held that the assessee is the person deriving income through such entities and income is chargea- ble u/s 5(1) read with section 6(3) of the Act in the hands of the assessee only. Accordingly, Rs. 2,41,00,000/- was added

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

asking the assessee to\nshow cause why in the case of the non-resident, the place of effective management as envisaged\nunder section 6(3) of the Act cannot be invoked in respect of M/s Otter Ltd. and M/s Credit Suisse\n(Singapore) Ltd. Regarding the third investor M/s Link

CA (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 2078/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalca(Singapore) Pte Ltd., The Assistant Vs. C/O Ca (India) Technologies Commissioner Of India Private Limited, Income Tax, S1 Wipro Sez, International Taxation, Doddathogur Village, Circle2 (1)(1), Begur Hobli, Mumbai. Electronic City, Bangalore-560100. [Pan :Aahcc8349Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ajit Jain, With Shri, Siddesh Chaugule, Ars Respondent By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, with Shri, Siddesh Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 270ASection 274

management in India during the previous year relevant to AY 2022-23 and it qualifies as a non-resident for the purpose of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (ii) That it has raised invoices for sale of software and support services which are ancillary

DCIT CC 7(2).MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 619/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021

For Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal
Section 14ASection 194ASection 40

certifying that ICICI Bank Ltd is a resident of that ICICI Bank Ltd is a resident of India as per the provisions of section 6(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 ("Act") and its India as per the provisions of section 6(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 ("Act") and its India ... provisions of section 6(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 ("Act") and its global income including that of its offshore branches in Singapore, Hongkong, global income including that of its offshore branches in Singapore, Hongkong, global income including that of its offshore branches in Singapore, Hongkong, Bahrain, Sri Lanka, Dubai International

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 3633/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

below :- “1. That the Appellant being a foreign company having no Permanent Establishment (P.E.) in India for A.Y. 2015-16, the provisions of section 6(3) were consequently inapplicable, warranting that the Ld. Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to assess income in India; consequently, there could not have been ... That the Ld. Assessing Officer misdirected himself by alleging 'Place of Effective Management' (POEM) in India, whereas the unamended section 6(3)(ii) applied for A.Y. 2015-16, thereby rendering the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer ultra vires to the provisions of the Act. 3. That the Appellant company

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 3632/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

below :- “1. That the Appellant being a foreign company having no Permanent Establishment (P.E.) in India for A.Y. 2015-16, the provisions of section 6(3) were consequently inapplicable, warranting that the Ld. Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to assess income in India; consequently, there could not have been ... That the Ld. Assessing Officer misdirected himself by alleging 'Place of Effective Management' (POEM) in India, whereas the unamended section 6(3)(ii) applied for A.Y. 2015-16, thereby rendering the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer ultra vires to the provisions of the Act. 3. That the Appellant company

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, DELHI

ITA 7/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

India. Even if it is presumed that\nBKKI is being controlled or managed from India in that case as per the\nprovisions of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act the income of BKKI can be\nmade taxable in India but its income cannot be taxed in the hands

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

ITA 51/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

India. Even if it is presumed that BKKI is being controlled or managed from India in that case as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act the income of BKKI can be made taxable in India but its income cannot be taxed in the hands ... income cannot be taxed in the hands of SCIPL since it is a separate legal entity. Thus, even if the provisions of section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act were made applicable, then BDML is to be separately taxed in India on the basis of its residence being

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

ITA 326/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

India. Even if it is presumed that BKKI is being controlled or managed from India in that case as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act the income of BKKI can be made taxable in India but its income cannot be taxed in the hands ... income cannot be taxed in the hands of SCIPL since it is a separate legal entity. Thus, even if the provisions of section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act were made applicable, then BDML is to be separately taxed in India on the basis of its residence being

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

ITA 281/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

India. Even if it is presumed that BKKI is being controlled or managed from India in that case as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act the income of BKKI can be made taxable in India but its income cannot be taxed in the hands ... income cannot be taxed in the hands of SCIPL since it is a separate legal entity. Thus, even if the provisions of section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act were made applicable, then BDML is to be separately taxed in India on the basis of its residence being

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

ITA 280/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

India. Even if it is presumed that\nBKKI is being controlled or managed from India in that case as per the\nprovisions of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act the income of BKKI can be\nmade taxable in India but its income cannot be taxed in the hands

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

ITA 279/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

India. Even if it is presumed that\nBKKI is being controlled or managed from India in that case as per the\nprovisions of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act the income of BKKI can be\nmade taxable in India but its income cannot be taxed in the hands

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

ITA 273/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

India. Even if it is presumed that\nBKKI is being controlled or managed from India in that case as per the\nprovisions of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act the income of BKKI can be\nmade taxable in India but its income cannot be taxed in the hands

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

ITA 272/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

India. Even if it is presumed that BKKI is being controlled or managed from India in that case as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act the income of BKKI can be made taxable in India but its income cannot be taxed in the hands ... income cannot be taxed in the hands of SCIPL since it is a separate legal entity. Thus, even if the provisions of section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act were made applicable, then BDML is to be separately taxed in India on the basis of its residence being

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 03, DELHI

ITA 271/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

India. Even if it is presumed that BKKI is being controlled or managed from India in that case as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act the income of BKKI can be made taxable in India but its income cannot be taxed in the hands ... income cannot be taxed in the hands of SCIPL since it is a separate legal entity. Thus, even if the provisions of section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act were made applicable, then BDML is to be separately taxed in India on the basis of its residence being

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. LUV RANJAN, GHAZIABAD

ITA 1845/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

India. Even if it is presumed that\nBKKI is being controlled or managed from India in that case as per the\nprovisions of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act the income of BKKI can be\nmade taxable in India but its income cannot be taxed in the hands

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

ITA 2951/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

India. Even if it is presumed that BKKI is being controlled or managed from India in that case as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act the income of BKKI can be made taxable in India but its income cannot be taxed in the hands ... income cannot be taxed in the hands of SCIPL since it is a separate legal entity. Thus, even if the provisions of section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act were made applicable, then BDML is to be separately taxed in India on the basis of its residence being

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

ITA 2950/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

India. Even if it is presumed that BKKI is being controlled or managed from India in that case as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act the income of BKKI can be made taxable in India but its income cannot be taxed in the hands ... income cannot be taxed in the hands of SCIPL since it is a separate legal entity. Thus, even if the provisions of section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act were made applicable, then BDML is to be separately taxed in India on the basis of its residence being

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

ITA 2756/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

India. Even if it is presumed that BKKI is being controlled or managed from India in that case as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act the income of BKKI can be made taxable in India but its income cannot be taxed in the hands ... income cannot be taxed in the hands of SCIPL since it is a separate legal entity. Thus, even if the provisions of section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act were made applicable, then BDML is to be separately taxed in India on the basis of its residence being

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

India. Even if it is presumed that BKKI is being controlled or managed from India in that case as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act the income of BKKI can be made taxable in India but its income cannot be taxed in the hands ... income cannot be taxed in the hands of SCIPL since it is a separate legal entity. Thus, even if the provisions of section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act were made applicable, then BDML is to be separately taxed in India on the basis of its residence being

Showing 1–20 of 99 · Page 1 of 5