Section 6 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.6

Section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (342 ITR 169), cited in 658 of the 340 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 6

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT
108 ITR 345 · 1977 · Supreme Court
209
citing judgments

Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, assuming that the law-making authority does not commit a mistake or make an omission. There is no room for purposive interpretation under direct tax laws.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT
57 ITR 532 · 1965 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

Not all receipts constitute income chargeable to tax. An Assessing Officer cannot reject a prima facie reasonable explanation on mere probabilities or arbitrary grounds, but must disprove facts.

J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar
94 ITR 616 · 1974 · High Court
58
citing judgments

An assessee found to be the owner of bullion, etc., must explain its source. The Income Tax Officer must find the assessee to be the owner, not merely in possession.

Som Nath Maini v. CIT
306 ITR 414 · 2008 · High Court
38
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer may reject the genuineness of a transaction if the evidence provided by the assessee is not trustworthy, even if the transaction appears to be conducted through cheques or other formal means. The burden of proving the genuineness of a transaction lies primarily on the assessee.

(i) Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP
46 Taxmann.com 100 · 2014 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Issuance of a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act is mandatory, and its non-issuance is not a curable procedural lapse.

PILCOM v. CIT
425 ITR 312 · 2010 · Supreme Court
27
citing judgments

Credit for tax deducted at source (TDS) must be granted to the taxpayer even if the income on which TDS was deducted is not taxable in India or if the obligation to deduct tax under a specific section is not affected by a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

01. Sunsathi Dayal v. CIT (SC)
213 ITR 805 · 1995 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Sums credited in the books of an assessee can be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act if the explanation offered regarding their nature and source is not satisfactory.

CIT v. AP Kalyanakrishnan
195 ITR 534 · 1992 · High Court
8
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 6

Allahabad Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal

CIVIL APPEAL No. 161/1952Supreme Court08 Oct 1953

Bench: The Judgment Under Appeal Income-Tax, Was Delivered. West Bengal Dissent Has Been Expressed In The Judgment Under Appeal From The Recent Decision Of The Bombay High Court In New Shorrock Spinning & 1L1 Anuf Acturing Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay('). The Facts Of That Case Are Entirely Different From The Facts Of The Case Before Us & That Decision Has No Manner Of Application To The Present Case. It Is, There- Fore, Unnecessary For Us To Discuss Or Express Any Opinion As To Whether The Observations To Be Found In The Judgment In That Case Are Or Are Not Well-Founded. For Reasons Stated Above, We Accept This Appeal & Hold That The Answer To The Question Referred By The Appellate Tribunal To The High Court Should Be In The Negative. The Respondent Company Must Pay The Costs Of The Appellant In This Court As Well As In The High Court. Appeal Allowed. Agent For The Appellant: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. Agent For The Respondent: S. C. Banerjee. Allahabad Bank Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West Bengal. [Patanjali Sastri C.J;, S.R. Das, Vivian Bose, Ghulam Hasan & Bhagwati Jj.] Income-Tax Act (Xi Of 1922). S. 10 (2) (Xv)-Contribntion Lo Trust For Payment Of Pension To Employees-Tvhether Bitsiness Expend- Iture-Payment Of Pension & Amount Thereof Left To Discretion Of Employer-No Obligation On Tr·Nstees To Pny Pension-Validity Of Trust. (1) [1950] 18 I.T.R. 712; A.I.R. 1950 Born. 39L V. Messrs. J Eewanlal Ltd. Dasj. 1963 Oct. 8

For Appellant: G. H. RajadhyakshaFor Respondent: S. C. Banerjee
Section 66(1)