Which cases are most cited on Section 6?

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (342 ITR 169) — 658 citing judgments; Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT (108 ITR 345) — 209 citing judgments; Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT (317 ITR 433) — 202 citing judgments; Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT (57 ITR 532) — 142 citing judgments; J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar (94 ITR 616) — 58 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 6?

BharatTax indexes 340 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 6 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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

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

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

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

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

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

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 6

Swallow Associates LLP, Mumbai vs. I.T.O WD - 17(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 928/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos.928 & 950/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Swallow Associates Llp Ito, Ward-17(3)(4), Mumbai Rpg House, 463, Dr. Vs Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan: Aaacr 5115 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Krish Desai, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata Dated 18.02.2013 & 22.02.2013 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Krish Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 5(2)Section 6

Income Tax Officer- 3(2), Kanpur vs. Shri Mayur Gupta, Kanpur

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 188/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 5(2)Section 6

Income Tax Officer- 3(2), Kanpur vs. Shri Mayur Gupta, Kanpur

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 187/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 5(2)Section 6

Sharangpani Dinkar Pant, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3353/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sharangpani Dinkar Ito It 3(3)(1), Pant, International Tax Ward- 402, Bhoomi Oscar, 3(3)(1), Plot No.16/17, Vs. Air India Building, Sector-9, Mumbai – 400 021 Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai - 400 701 Pan: Aippp0288E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Balaji V, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 02 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 02 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Amarjit Singh: Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Same Assessment Year I.E. 2018-19 Against The Two Different Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act On The Common Issue Of Allowability Of Tds Credit Of Rs.17,59,258/- Which Was Not Allowed By The Ao Vide Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act & Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Vide Ita

For Appellant: Shri Balaji V, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(b)Section 143(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Sharangpani Dinkar Pant, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3352/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Balaji V, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(b)Section 143(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Shri Arindam Dasgupta., Kolkata vs. ACIT, It-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1127/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 5(2)(b)Section 6

Rajat Dhara, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1914/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1914/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajat Dhara............................................................…………………….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Abqpd1200L] Vs. Dcit (I.T), Circle-2(1), Kolkata...…….…..….........…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Earlier Decided By The Order Of The Tribunal Dated March 02, 2022, However, The Revenue Moved An M.A No.35/Kol/2022 Stating Therein That A Mistake Apparent On Record Has Occurred In The Order Of The Tribunal Dated 02.03.2022. Therefore, Vide Order Dated 15.12.2023 Passed In M.A No.35/Kol/2022, The Final Order Dated 02.03.2022 Passed In Ita No.1914/Kol/2019 Was Recalled. The Appeal Has Been Heard Afresh. 3. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 5Section 5(1)Section 90