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

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi vs. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 197/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 197/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2013-2014 To 2017-2018) Vs Jharkhand Acit, Ranchi State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, Nepal House Area, Ranchi Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 2578 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, All Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017- 2018, Respectively. 2. An Adjournment Has Been Sought On Behalf Of The Assessee By Shri Aloke Kumar Choudhuri, Gm(Finance) Of The Assessee Corporation Stating That Due To Unforeseen Circumstances, They Have Been Unable To Engage Alternative Representation & Prepare The Case For The Hearing Within The Scheduled Timeframe. The Reasons Given Being Unsatisfactory, The Adjournment Application Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee Stands Rejected. 3. Shri Rajib Jain, Ld. Cit-Dr Has Also Sought Adjournment Stating That The Order Has Been Passed By Him As Cit(A) & His Stands Be Precluded From Defending The Said Order As He Has Given Relief To The Assessee & It 2

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: None (Adjournment Petition filed)
Section 206CSection 260

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi vs. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 196/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 197/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2013-2014 To 2017-2018) Vs Jharkhand Acit, Ranchi State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, Nepal House Area, Ranchi Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 2578 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, All Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017- 2018, Respectively. 2. An Adjournment Has Been Sought On Behalf Of The Assessee By Shri Aloke Kumar Choudhuri, Gm(Finance) Of The Assessee Corporation Stating That Due To Unforeseen Circumstances, They Have Been Unable To Engage Alternative Representation & Prepare The Case For The Hearing Within The Scheduled Timeframe. The Reasons Given Being Unsatisfactory, The Adjournment Application Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee Stands Rejected. 3. Shri Rajib Jain, Ld. Cit-Dr Has Also Sought Adjournment Stating That The Order Has Been Passed By Him As Cit(A) & His Stands Be Precluded From Defending The Said Order As He Has Given Relief To The Assessee & It 2

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: None (Adjournment Petition filed)
Section 206CSection 260

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi vs. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 195/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 197/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2013-2014 To 2017-2018) Vs Jharkhand Acit, Ranchi State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, Nepal House Area, Ranchi Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 2578 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, All Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017- 2018, Respectively. 2. An Adjournment Has Been Sought On Behalf Of The Assessee By Shri Aloke Kumar Choudhuri, Gm(Finance) Of The Assessee Corporation Stating That Due To Unforeseen Circumstances, They Have Been Unable To Engage Alternative Representation & Prepare The Case For The Hearing Within The Scheduled Timeframe. The Reasons Given Being Unsatisfactory, The Adjournment Application Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee Stands Rejected. 3. Shri Rajib Jain, Ld. Cit-Dr Has Also Sought Adjournment Stating That The Order Has Been Passed By Him As Cit(A) & His Stands Be Precluded From Defending The Said Order As He Has Given Relief To The Assessee & It 2

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: None (Adjournment Petition filed)
Section 206CSection 260

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi vs. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 194/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 197/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2013-2014 To 2017-2018) Vs Jharkhand Acit, Ranchi State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, Nepal House Area, Ranchi Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 2578 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, All Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017- 2018, Respectively. 2. An Adjournment Has Been Sought On Behalf Of The Assessee By Shri Aloke Kumar Choudhuri, Gm(Finance) Of The Assessee Corporation Stating That Due To Unforeseen Circumstances, They Have Been Unable To Engage Alternative Representation & Prepare The Case For The Hearing Within The Scheduled Timeframe. The Reasons Given Being Unsatisfactory, The Adjournment Application Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee Stands Rejected. 3. Shri Rajib Jain, Ld. Cit-Dr Has Also Sought Adjournment Stating That The Order Has Been Passed By Him As Cit(A) & His Stands Be Precluded From Defending The Said Order As He Has Given Relief To The Assessee & It 2

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: None (Adjournment Petition filed)
Section 206CSection 260

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi vs. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 193/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 197/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2013-2014 To 2017-2018) Vs Jharkhand Acit, Ranchi State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, Nepal House Area, Ranchi Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 2578 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, All Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017- 2018, Respectively. 2. An Adjournment Has Been Sought On Behalf Of The Assessee By Shri Aloke Kumar Choudhuri, Gm(Finance) Of The Assessee Corporation Stating That Due To Unforeseen Circumstances, They Have Been Unable To Engage Alternative Representation & Prepare The Case For The Hearing Within The Scheduled Timeframe. The Reasons Given Being Unsatisfactory, The Adjournment Application Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee Stands Rejected. 3. Shri Rajib Jain, Ld. Cit-Dr Has Also Sought Adjournment Stating That The Order Has Been Passed By Him As Cit(A) & His Stands Be Precluded From Defending The Said Order As He Has Given Relief To The Assessee & It 2

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: None (Adjournment Petition filed)
Section 206CSection 260