I flew out of India in October. Does the day I left count as a day of stay in India for the 182-day test, and does a part-day count?
Yes, on this ruling - and the day of arrival counts too. The Authority for Advance Rulings, working out whether the applicant was resident under section 6(1)(a), held that for that purpose the days on which he entered India as well as the days on which he left India have to be taken into account. An argument that the stay should instead be computed in hours was put aside as impractical, and in any event no data had been furnished from which an hours-based figure could be worked out. Counting both days made the applicant resident, and the application was rejected as not maintainable.
Decided by the ITAT (Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi - S. Ranganathan, J., Chairman; D.B. Lal and R.L. Meena, Members) on 1996-02-08, reported as [1997] 223 ITR 462 (AAR); [1997] 90 Taxman 62 (AAR - New Delhi); P. No. 7 of 1995. It bears on section 6(1)(a), section 6, section 245Q(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Residence & Treaty Benefit matters.
There is very little reasoned Indian authority on how to count the days at the two ends of a visit, and this is the one that is usually cited. It is worth reaching for because it decides the point in a way that has a practical consequence - two extra days on every trip - and because it disposes of the hours-based argument that taxpayers close to the line tend to make. But it must be cited for what it is. It is a ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings, not a judgment of a court, it binds only the applicant and the Commissioner in that case, and the point arose while the Authority was satisfying itself that the applicant was a non-resident entitled to apply at all. There is a Tribunal line that treats the position on the day of arrival differently, so a reader near the 182-day boundary should treat the question as contested rather than settled.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The applicant approached the Authority for Advance Rulings for a ruling on two questions: whether a legal proprietary entity in the United Arab Emirates that has no corporate law structure could be treated as a 'company' for the purposes of the dividend article of the double taxation avoidance agreement, and whether a person of the status of resident but not ordinarily resident would nonetheless be entitled to the preferential rate of tax on dividends. Before it could take up those questions the Authority had to satisfy itself that the applicant was a non-resident, since section 245Q(1) allows only a non-resident, and certain residents in specified circumstances, to apply for an advance ruling. That turned on the number of days the applicant had been in India in the relevant previous year under section 6(1)(a). The applicant's travel produced a figure close to the statutory line, and he argued that the days at the two ends of each visit should not be counted, or alternatively that his stay should be computed in hours rather than days.
The Authority held that what section 6(1)(a) requires is a count of the number of days on which the person was in India, and that for that purpose the days on which the applicant entered India as well as the days on which he left India have to be taken into account, because on such a date he was in India even if only for part of it. The alternative computation by reference to hours was rejected: the Authority described the idea as impractical and added that, even assuming the argument to be correct, no data had been furnished on the basis of which the applicant's stay in India in terms of hours could be worked out. Counting the days at both ends of each visit, the applicant was found to be a resident individual rather than a non-resident. He therefore had no standing to seek a ruling under section 245Q(1), and the application was rejected as not maintainable.
The Authority approached section 6(1)(a) as a counting provision. The statute asks whether the person has been in India for a period or periods amounting in all to 182 days or more in the previous year, and the unit it uses is the day. Once the unit is the day, the question for any given date is simply whether the person was in India on that date at all. On the date he lands he is in India, and on the date he leaves he is in India, for however short a part of the day in each case. Both dates therefore go into the count. The applicant's alternative, that the stay should be measured in hours so that partial days are proportionately reduced, was met on two levels. As a matter of workability the Authority thought it impractical, since it would require every arrival and departure to be timed and reconciled for every trip in the year. As a matter of proof it failed on the record, because the applicant had not put forward the material from which an hours-based figure could have been computed even if the approach were right. The counting exercise mattered because it went to the Authority's own jurisdiction: only a non-resident could bring the application, and once the count made the applicant a resident, the application had to be rejected without the substantive questions being answered.
For this purpose, the days on which the applicant entered India as well as the days on which he left India have to be taken into account.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes, on this ruling - and the day of arrival counts too. The Authority for Advance Rulings, working out whether the applicant was resident under section 6(1)(a), held that for that purpose the days on which he entered India as well as the days on which he left India have to be taken into account. An argument that the stay should instead be computed in hours was put aside as impractical, and in any event no data had been furnished from which an hours-based figure could be worked out. Counting both days made the applicant resident, and the application was rejected as not maintainable. This was decided by the ITAT (Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi - S. Ranganathan, J., Chairman; D.B. Lal and R.L. Meena, Members) and bears on section 6(1)(a), section 6, section 245Q(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [1997] 223 ITR 462 (AAR); [1997] 90 Taxman 62 (AAR - New Delhi); P. No. 7 of 1995. There is very little reasoned Indian authority on how to count the days at the two ends of a visit, and this is the one that is usually cited. It is worth reaching for because it decides the point in a way that has a practical consequence - two extra days on every trip - and because it disposes of the hours-based argument that taxpayers close to the line tend to make. But it must be cited for what it is. It is a ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings, not a judgment of a court, it binds only the applicant and the Commissioner in that case, and the point arose while the Authority was satisfying itself that the applicant was a non-resident entitled to apply at all. There is a Tribunal line that treats the position on the day of arrival differently, so a reader near the 182-day boundary should treat the question as contested rather than settled. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Count the day of arrival and the day of departure as days in India when you are anywhere near 182, and plan the travel on that basis rather than on a favourable count.
The applicant approached the Authority for Advance Rulings for a ruling on two questions: whether a legal proprietary entity in the United Arab Emirates that has no corporate law structure could be treated as a 'company' for the purposes of the dividend article of the double taxation avoidance agreement, and whether a person of the status of resident but not ordinarily resident would nonetheless be entitled to the preferential rate of tax on dividends. Before it could take up those questions the Authority had to satisfy itself that the applicant was a non-resident, since section 245Q(1) allows only a non-resident, and certain residents in specified circumstances, to apply for an advance ruling. That turned on the number of days the applicant had been in India in the relevant previous year under section 6(1)(a). The applicant's travel produced a figure close to the statutory line, and he argued that the days at the two ends of each visit should not be counted, or alternatively that his stay should be computed in hours rather than days. The matter was decided on 1996-02-08 by the ITAT (Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi - S. Ranganathan, J., Chairman; D.B. Lal and R.L. Meena, Members). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The Authority held that what section 6(1)(a) requires is a count of the number of days on which the person was in India, and that for that purpose the days on which the applicant entered India as well as the days on which he left India have to be taken into account, because on such a date he was in India even if only for part of it. The alternative computation by reference to hours was rejected: the Authority described the idea as impractical and added that, even assuming the argument to be correct, no data had been furnished on the basis of which the applicant's stay in India in terms of hours could be worked out. Counting the days at both ends of each visit, the applicant was found to be a resident individual rather than a non-resident. He therefore had no standing to seek a ruling under section 245Q(1), and the application was rejected as not maintainable.
The Authority approached section 6(1)(a) as a counting provision. The statute asks whether the person has been in India for a period or periods amounting in all to 182 days or more in the previous year, and the unit it uses is the day. Once the unit is the day, the question for any given date is simply whether the person was in India on that date at all. On the date he lands he is in India, and on the date he leaves he is in India, for however short a part of the day in each case. Both dates therefore go into the count. The applicant's alternative, that the stay should be measured in hours so that partial days are proportionately reduced, was met on two levels. As a matter of workability the Authority thought it impractical, since it would require every arrival and departure to be timed and reconciled for every trip in the year. As a matter of proof it failed on the record, because the applicant had not put forward the material from which an hours-based figure could have been computed even if the approach were right. The counting exercise mattered because it went to the Authority's own jurisdiction: only a non-resident could bring the application, and once the count made the applicant a resident, the application had to be rejected without the substantive questions being answered. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "For this purpose, the days on which the applicant entered India as well as the days on which he left India have to be taken into account."
It was decided by the ITAT on 1996-02-08 and is reported as [1997] 223 ITR 462 (AAR); [1997] 90 Taxman 62 (AAR - New Delhi); P. No. 7 of 1995. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 6(1)(a), section 6, section 245Q(1), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The Authority held that what section 6(1)(a) requires is a count of the number of days on which the person was in India, and that for that purpose the days on which the applicant entered India as well as the days on which he left India have to be taken into account, because on such a date he was in India even if only for part of it. The alternative computation by reference to hours was rejected: the Authority described the idea as impractical and added that, even assuming the argument to be correct, no data had been furnished on the basis of which the applicant's stay in India in terms of hours could be worked out. Counting the days at both ends of each visit, the applicant was found to be a resident individual rather than a non-resident. He therefore had no standing to seek a ruling under section 245Q(1), and the application was rejected as not maintainable. It arises in Residence & Treaty Benefit matters, on section 6(1)(a), section 6, section 245Q(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi - S. Ranganathan, J., Chairman; D.B. Lal and R.L. Meena, Members. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Keep the primary travel record - passport stamps, boarding passes, immigration entries - because the Authority declined an hours-based computation partly for want of data. Do not build a case on hours spent in India on the day of a flight; the argument was raised here and got nowhere. If your count turns on the day of arrival alone, check the Tribunal decisions on that question before you take a position, because the point is contested.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. This is a ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings, binding under the statute only on the applicant and on the Commissioner in that applicant's case, and not a judgment binding on anyone else. A citator search on the ruling returns nothing, and a search on its name and report reference returns only the ruling itself and one later decision: Mahalingam Nadarajan v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras High Court (C. Saravanan, J.), W.P. No. 14470 of 2026 with W.M.P. Nos. 15688 and 15690 of 2026, 16 April 2026. That order was read. It is an interim order staying recovery until 12 June 2026 and calling for a counter-affidavit; the ruling appears in it once, at paragraph 10, and only in the petitioner's own submission, the submission being that the ruling binds neither the petitioner nor the Department. The Court did not engage with the day-counting reasoning at all. The order of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal noted earlier as referring to this ruling could not be located again on either search. So no court has adopted the position that the day of departure counts in the period of stay under section 6(1)(a), and equally nothing departing from it was found. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The ruling was read on Indian Kanoon. Two things should be said plainly about how far it goes. First, the observations on counting the days of arrival and departure were made while the Authority was determining the applicant's residential status for the purpose of its own jurisdiction under section 245Q(1); the application was then rejected as not maintainable and the questions actually asked were never answered. Second, 'tier' is recorded as itat because the controlled list has no value for the Authority for Advance Rulings; it is not a Tribunal decision. The suggestion that the position on the day of arrival is contradicted by a line of Tribunal decisions could not be verified - no such decision was read - and is stated here only as a caution to check. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Authority held that what section 6(1)(a) requires is a count of the number of days on which the person was in India, and that for that purpose the days on which the applicant entered India as well as the days on which he left India have to be taken into account, because on such a date he was in India even if only for part of it. The alternative computation by reference to hours was rejected: the Authority described the idea as impractical and added that, even assuming the argument to be correct, no data had been furnished on the basis of which the applicant's stay in India in terms of hours could be worked out. Counting the days at both ends of each visit, the applicant was found to be a resident individual rather than a non-resident. He therefore had no standing to seek a ruling under section 245Q(1), and the application was rejected as not maintainable.
TaxSphere, “Petition No. 7 of 1995, In re”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/aar-petition-7-of-1995-departure-day-counts-in-stay/ (validity last checked 2026-09-16)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My passport was seized and I could not leave India. Do those days count towards the 182 days?
The Assessing Officer has computed my days in India from immigration records instead of the stamps in my passport. Can he go behind the passport like that?
The AO counted 184 days and called me resident. Does the day I landed in India count?
I moved to Singapore with my family. Can the AO's tie-breaker questionnaire alone make me an Indian resident?
