Section 6(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.6

Section 6(1) falls under section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 6 (Residence in India) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 6 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 6(1) is CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan (247 ITR 260), cited in 53 of the 40 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 6(1)

CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan
247 ITR 260 · 2001 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Salary received by a non-resident for services rendered outside India accrues outside India and is not taxable in India. Only salary earned for work performed in India is regarded as income arising in India and is taxable.

DIT (International Taxation) v. PrahladVijendra Rao
198 Taxmann 551 · 2011 · High Court
42
citing judgments
DCIT v. Sudipta Maity
96 Taxmann.com 336 · 2018 · Reported
10
citing judgments

Income derived by a non-resident for performing services in India is taxable in India, even if the payment is received outside India and the individual is not a resident of India, provided the services are rendered within the territorial limits of India.

Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay v. CIT
111 Taxmann.com 374 · 2019 · Reported
8
citing judgments
Arvind Singh Chauhan v. ITO
42 Taxmann.com 285 · 2014 · ITAT
8
citing judgments
Skaps Industries India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, International Taxation, Ahmedabad
171 ITD 723 · 2018 · ITAT
7
citing judgments
ITO v. Sunil Chitranjan Muncif
58 SOT 356 · ITAT
5
citing judgments
CIT v. Dhote (B.K.)
66 ITR 457 · 1967 · Supreme Court
3
citing judgments
Pramod Kumar Sapra v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panipat*
87 Taxmann.com 98 · 2017 · High Court
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 6(1)

Income Tax Officer and Anr vs. V.Mohan and Anr

C.A. No.-008592-008593 - 2010Supreme Court14 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

Section 2Section 2(2)(c)Section 6Section 6(1)Section 6(2)

Sanjay Thukral, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 378/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Sanjay Thukral, Vs. Dcit, No.66/1, C/O. Nike Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd., Cpc, Bengaluru. Olympia Building, Bagmane Tech Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru. Pan : Aeept 4868 H Assessee By : Shri. Sharath Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 192Section 5(2)Section 6(1)

Income-Tax Officer vs. Shri Amit Murlidhar Kamthe, Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 699/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

Ranjith Kumar Vuppu, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation-II, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 86/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Smt. Sherry GoyalFor Respondent: Smt. Kanika Agarwal,DR
Section 143(2)Section 5(2)Section 6(1)Section 90Section 90(4)

Vamsee Krishna Kundurthi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation -1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Shery GoyalFor Respondent: Smt. Kanika Agarwal, DR
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 5(2)Section 6(1)Section 90Section 90(4)

Bangalore Development Authority vs. Doddalakkappa

WA/3855/2010HC Karnataka17 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 17(1)Section 4Section 4(1)Section 6(1)

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2333/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2006-07
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Sanjiv Krishnakant Ashtamkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6579/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6579/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Shri. Sanjiv Krishnakant Income Tax Officer 3(3) Ashtamkar Room No.8, B Wing, B-2, Ratna Umaid Ashar It Park, V. Residency, Pipe Line Road, Rd No. 16-Z, Luiswadi, Thane 400604 Wagle Industrial Estate, Maharashtra Thane (W)- 400604 Maharashtra स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abbpa3596K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Kishore Poddar Revenue By: Shri. Ajai Pratap Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6579/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.08.2017 In Appeal No. Pn/Cit(A)-2/Ito Wd-3(3)/Thn/83/2017-18, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 27.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay: 2009-10. I.T.A. No.6579/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Kishore PoddarFor Respondent: Shri. Ajai Pratap Singh (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT(It), Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Debashis Palchaudhuri, Kolata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2130/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Ravivs Shri Debashis Pal Chaudhuri, Acit(It), Circle-1(1), 193/2, Banerjee Para Road, Kolkata-700107. Paschim Putiary, Kolkata-700041. Pan-Ajtpp0087G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. S.M.Das, Addl. Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. & Navin Jain, Ca Date Of Hearing 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 23.04.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 21.07.2017 Passed By Cit(A)-22, Kolkata For Ay 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Raised 10 Grounds Amongst Which The Only Ground Emanates Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Holding That The Salary Earned Outside India Is Not Taxable In The Hands Of The Assessee In India.

Section 2(30)Section 5(2)Section 6(1)

ACIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Binod Kumar Singh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 46/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Yadgiri, DRFor Respondent: S/shri Jitendra B. Sanghavi
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 6(1)Section 6(1)(c)Section 68Section 9

ACIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Binod Kumar Singh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 45/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Yadgiri, DRFor Respondent: S/shri Jitendra B. Sanghavi
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 6(1)Section 6(1)(c)Section 68Section 9

ADIT Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Dhruv Choudhary, New Delhi

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in limine

ITA 262/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantay: 2008-09 Adit, International Taxation Vs. Sh. Dhruv Choudhary Circle 1(1) 45-46, Sunder Nagar New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadpc 4041 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.D.R Respondent By : Sh. Tarun Singh, Adv.

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh. Tarun Singh, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 6(1)

Ganesh Chandrasekaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 293/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

Sri S.N. Wadiyar (Dead) Through Lr vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Karnataka

In the result, the appeals succeed and are hereby

CIVIL APPEAL No. 6873/2005Supreme Court21 Sept 2015

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 10(1)Section 3Section 6(1)Section 7Section 8

Sri.S.N.Waditar(Dead) Through Lr vs. Commnr. of Wealth Tax, Karnataka

In the result, the appeals succeed and are hereby allowed

C.A. No.-006873-006881 - 2005Supreme Court21 Sept 2015

Bench: A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 20Section 30Section 6(1)

C.I.T.-Gandhinagar vs. Mehsana Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd

Appeal is dismissed accordingly

TAXAP/573/2003HC Gujarat16 Oct 2014
Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

M/S. Jaswant Talkies vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhilwara

C.A. No.-005161-005161 - 2007Supreme Court12 Nov 2007

Bench: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT D.K. JAIN

For Respondent: Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhilwara
Section 10Section 10(3)(a)Section 10(3)(b)Section 6Section 86

C.I.T. Bombay vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra Bar Council of India Bar Council of Gujarat

In the result we are of the opinion that the High Court was

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2115/1980Supreme Court22 Apr 1981

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 10Section 11Section 2Section 2(15)Section 6(1)

M/S. Carborandum Co vs. C.I.T., Madras

CIVIL APPEAL No. 89/1975Supreme Court11 Apr 1977

Bench: 3 Judges

Badri Prasad and Ors. Etc vs. Collector of Central Excise & Ors. Etc

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 24/1970Supreme Court30 Mar 1971

Bench: 5 Judges

Section 71