I was resident of both countries for part of the year. Can the treaty put me in the other country for that part only?
In practical effect yes, but the decision is thinner authority than it looks. The Assessing Officer had taxed the salary the assessee earned in the United States after returning there in August 2012. The first appellate authority applied the second limb of Article 4 of the India-United States agreement, found the centre of vital interests closer to the United States for that period, held him a resident of the United States for it and deleted the addition. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on two grounds only: that the first appellate authority had not based his conclusion on the residency certificate, so no question of fresh evidence arose, and that no finding under s.6(1)(c) was called for because residency was being determined under Article 4. It never adjudicated the proposition that split residency is available.
Decided by the ITAT (ITAT Bangalore Bench 'A' - N.V. Vasudevan (Vice-President) and G. Manjunatha (Accountant Member); order delivered by N.V. Vasudevan; ITA No. 1655 (Bang.) of 2017; AY 2013-14) on 2019-03-15, reported as (2019) 104 taxmann.com 183 (Bang.)(Trib.); (2019) 177 ITD 17 (Bang.)(Trib.); ITA No. 1655 (Bang.) of 2017; AY 2013-14. It bears on section 6(1)(c), section 90 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Residence & Treaty Benefit and Salary & Perquisites matters.
The Act gives a single status for the whole previous year and no mechanism for apportioning it, so a client who plainly ceased to live in India in the middle of the year has nothing to work with under domestic law. This decision is the outcome that treaty route can produce, and it is worth knowing for that. It is not authority for the proposition. The Tribunal never decided that split residency is available, and the tie-breaker was performed by the first appellate authority and merely upheld as an appreciation of the facts that could not be faulted. The only proposition the Tribunal states in its own voice is narrower: where residency is being determined under Article 4 of an agreement, a finding under s.6(1)(c) does not assume importance. And the next Bench to be shown this decision declined to treat it as transferable, so anyone relying on it needs to read the validity note first.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee is a United States citizen who has lived and worked in the United States since 1986. He was assigned on a temporary cross-border assignment to Accenture India from June 2006 to August 2012, completed that assignment on 10 August 2012 and moved back to Accenture in the United States. The sum in dispute for AY 2013-14 is the salary he earned in the United States for 11 August 2012 to March 2013, US$4,55,428, converted at Rs. 53.98 to Rs. 2,45,84,003. The Indian assignment is therefore the period that ended in August 2012, and the disputed period is the one after his return. The Assessing Officer treated the income of that later period as taxable in India, on the footing that residence under the Act by physical presence of more than 182 days made the global income chargeable, that personal and economic relations are a continuous qualitative connection that cannot be broken into pieces, that neither the Act nor the agreement recognises split residency, and that no treaty relief was available without a tax residency certificate and Form 10F. The first appellate authority applied the second tie-breaker, found the centre of vital interests closer to the United States for August 2012 to March 2013, held the assessee a resident of the United States under the agreement for that period and deleted the addition.
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, but on two narrow grounds and not on the tie-breaker. On the ground that the tax residency certificate was fresh evidence admitted without a remand report, the Tribunal held the point had no merit, because the first appellate authority made only a passing reference to the certificate and did not base his conclusion on it: he applied the test of closer personal and economic relations, having found a permanent home available in both States, and his conclusions on the facts and the supporting evidence could not be faulted (para 21). On the ground that he had held the assessee non-resident without any finding under s.6(1)(c), the Tribunal held that the test of residency in this case is based on Article 4 of the agreement, so that provision does not assume any importance and no finding on it was called for (para 22). The split-residency proposition was never adjudicated: the Assessing Officer's holding that neither the Act nor the agreement recognises the concept (para 16) is recorded and then left alone. Split residency is the practical effect of the outcome, not the ratio, and the decision should not be cited as authority that the concept is recognised. Nothing was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The tie-breaker exercise in this case was performed by the first appellate authority, not by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's own reasoning is three paragraphs long and consists of holding that the first appellate authority's conclusions on the facts and the supporting evidence could not be faulted, and that s.6(1)(c) does not assume importance because residency was being determined under Article 4 of the agreement. The factor tables at paras 10 and 13 - dependants, personal belongings, voting rights, driving licence, designated country of residence, social ties, investments, settlement, social security - record the case as put by the assessee and are not findings the Tribunal made. The letting of the United States property belongs to the earlier part of the year: at para 9 that house was let out and so treated as unavailable, and residency for 1 April to 10 August 2012 tie-broke to India. For the disputed period from 11 August 2012 a permanent home was available in both States (para 11), which is why the second limb was reached (paras 12 and 13). There is no contradiction between those two facts. The order cites no authority at all - not one decision is named anywhere in it - so any statement that it followed or applied earlier tie-breaker decisions is unsupported.
As far as ground No.3 is concerned, the test of residency is based on Article 4 of the DTAA in the present case and therefore the provisions of section 6(1)(c) of the Act do not assume any importance.
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 WhatsAppIn practical effect yes, but the decision is thinner authority than it looks. The Assessing Officer had taxed the salary the assessee earned in the United States after returning there in August 2012. The first appellate authority applied the second limb of Article 4 of the India-United States agreement, found the centre of vital interests closer to the United States for that period, held him a resident of the United States for it and deleted the addition. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on two grounds only: that the first appellate authority had not based his conclusion on the residency certificate, so no question of fresh evidence arose, and that no finding under s.6(1)(c) was called for because residency was being determined under Article 4. It never adjudicated the proposition that split residency is available. This was decided by the ITAT (ITAT Bangalore Bench 'A' - N.V. Vasudevan (Vice-President) and G. Manjunatha (Accountant Member); order delivered by N.V. Vasudevan; ITA No. 1655 (Bang.) of 2017; AY 2013-14) and bears on section 6(1)(c), section 90 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as (2019) 104 taxmann.com 183 (Bang.)(Trib.); (2019) 177 ITD 17 (Bang.)(Trib.); ITA No. 1655 (Bang.) of 2017; AY 2013-14. The Act gives a single status for the whole previous year and no mechanism for apportioning it, so a client who plainly ceased to live in India in the middle of the year has nothing to work with under domestic law. This decision is the outcome that treaty route can produce, and it is worth knowing for that. It is not authority for the proposition. The Tribunal never decided that split residency is available, and the tie-breaker was performed by the first appellate authority and merely upheld as an appreciation of the facts that could not be faulted. The only proposition the Tribunal states in its own voice is narrower: where residency is being determined under Article 4 of an agreement, a finding under s.6(1)(c) does not assume importance. And the next Bench to be shown this decision declined to treat it as transferable, so anyone relying on it needs to read the validity note first. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Establish residence of the other State under its own law for the period first, and obtain the residence certificate, because s.90(4) makes it a condition of claiming any relief.
The assessee is a United States citizen who has lived and worked in the United States since 1986. He was assigned on a temporary cross-border assignment to Accenture India from June 2006 to August 2012, completed that assignment on 10 August 2012 and moved back to Accenture in the United States. The sum in dispute for AY 2013-14 is the salary he earned in the United States for 11 August 2012 to March 2013, US$4,55,428, converted at Rs. 53.98 to Rs. 2,45,84,003. The Indian assignment is therefore the period that ended in August 2012, and the disputed period is the one after his return. The Assessing Officer treated the income of that later period as taxable in India, on the footing that residence under the Act by physical presence of more than 182 days made the global income chargeable, that personal and economic relations are a continuous qualitative connection that cannot be broken into pieces, that neither the Act nor the agreement recognises split residency, and that no treaty relief was available without a tax residency certificate and Form 10F. The first appellate authority applied the second tie-breaker, found the centre of vital interests closer to the United States for August 2012 to March 2013, held the assessee a resident of the United States under the agreement for that period and deleted the addition. The matter was decided on 2019-03-15 by the ITAT (ITAT Bangalore Bench 'A' - N.V. Vasudevan (Vice-President) and G. Manjunatha (Accountant Member); order delivered by N.V. Vasudevan; ITA No. 1655 (Bang.) of 2017; AY 2013-14). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, but on two narrow grounds and not on the tie-breaker. On the ground that the tax residency certificate was fresh evidence admitted without a remand report, the Tribunal held the point had no merit, because the first appellate authority made only a passing reference to the certificate and did not base his conclusion on it: he applied the test of closer personal and economic relations, having found a permanent home available in both States, and his conclusions on the facts and the supporting evidence could not be faulted (para 21). On the ground that he had held the assessee non-resident without any finding under s.6(1)(c), the Tribunal held that the test of residency in this case is based on Article 4 of the agreement, so that provision does not assume any importance and no finding on it was called for (para 22). The split-residency proposition was never adjudicated: the Assessing Officer's holding that neither the Act nor the agreement recognises the concept (para 16) is recorded and then left alone. Split residency is the practical effect of the outcome, not the ratio, and the decision should not be cited as authority that the concept is recognised. Nothing was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The tie-breaker exercise in this case was performed by the first appellate authority, not by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's own reasoning is three paragraphs long and consists of holding that the first appellate authority's conclusions on the facts and the supporting evidence could not be faulted, and that s.6(1)(c) does not assume importance because residency was being determined under Article 4 of the agreement. The factor tables at paras 10 and 13 - dependants, personal belongings, voting rights, driving licence, designated country of residence, social ties, investments, settlement, social security - record the case as put by the assessee and are not findings the Tribunal made. The letting of the United States property belongs to the earlier part of the year: at para 9 that house was let out and so treated as unavailable, and residency for 1 April to 10 August 2012 tie-broke to India. For the disputed period from 11 August 2012 a permanent home was available in both States (para 11), which is why the second limb was reached (paras 12 and 13). There is no contradiction between those two facts. The order cites no authority at all - not one decision is named anywhere in it - so any statement that it followed or applied earlier tie-breaker decisions is unsupported. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "As far as ground No.3 is concerned, the test of residency is based on Article 4 of the DTAA in the present case and therefore the provisions of section 6(1)(c) of the Act do not assume any importance."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2019-03-15 and is reported as (2019) 104 taxmann.com 183 (Bang.)(Trib.); (2019) 177 ITD 17 (Bang.)(Trib.); ITA No. 1655 (Bang.) of 2017; AY 2013-14. 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)(c), section 90, 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 taxpayer. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, but on two narrow grounds and not on the tie-breaker. On the ground that the tax residency certificate was fresh evidence admitted without a remand report, the Tribunal held the point had no merit, because the first appellate authority made only a passing reference to the certificate and did not base his conclusion on it: he applied the test of closer personal and economic relations, having found a permanent home available in both States, and his conclusions on the facts and the supporting evidence could not be faulted (para 21). On the ground that he had held the assessee non-resident without any finding under s.6(1)(c), the Tribunal held that the test of residency in this case is based on Article 4 of the agreement, so that provision does not assume any importance and no finding on it was called for (para 22). The split-residency proposition was never adjudicated: the Assessing Officer's holding that neither the Act nor the agreement recognises the concept (para 16) is recorded and then left alone. Split residency is the practical effect of the outcome, not the ratio, and the decision should not be cited as authority that the concept is recognised. Nothing was restored to the Assessing Officer. It arises in Residence & Treaty Benefit and Salary & Perquisites matters, on section 6(1)(c), section 90 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by ITAT Bangalore Bench 'A' - N.V. Vasudevan (Vice-President) and G. Manjunatha (Accountant Member); order delivered by N.V. Vasudevan; ITA No. 1655 (Bang.) of 2017; AY 2013-14. 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. Work Article 4 in its fixed sequence — permanent home, then centre of vital interests, then habitual abode, then nationality — and show why the earlier limb does not decide it before moving to the next. Assemble the objective facts the second limb turns on: where the family lived, where the home was available rather than let out, where the employment and the day-to-day economic life were. Identify precisely which receipts fall in the allocated period, because only those are reached; the annual status under the Act continues to govern everything the treaty does not allocate, including the reporting schedules.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The entry carried no indiankanoon id; the order is on the site as doc 147447891 (DCIT v Sri Kumar Sanjeev Ranjan, ITAT Bangalore, 15 March 2019) and that id should be added to the entry. A citedby: search on it returns nothing, and a name probe returns only the order itself. No later decision citing it on residential status under s.6(1)(c) or on relief under s.90 was found, and no Karnataka High Court appeal from it was traced. 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 order has been read in full and the conflicts the earlier record disclosed are resolved. The appeal number is ITA No. 1655 (Bang.) of 2017, not 1665. The assessment year is 2013-14, confirmed by paras 3 and 6. The cause title is Shri Kumar Sanjeev Ranjan; the spelling 'Ranjana' taken from a digest is wrong. The members are N.V. Vasudevan (Vice-President) and G. Manjunatha (Accountant Member), Bangalore Bench 'A', and N.V. Vasudevan delivered the order. The parallel report is at 177 ITD 17, not 177 DTR 17 - the same volume and page but a different series. The professional journal's account of the facts is the right one and can now be stated as fact: the Indian assignment ran from June 2006 to 10 August 2012 and the income in dispute is the United States salary for the period after his return, so the digest's description of an Indian assignment running from August 2012 to March 2013 is simply inaccurate and the hedging it forced can be removed. The apparent contradiction about the United States house being let out is resolved: the letting is recorded at para 9 and applies only to 1 April to 10 August 2012, for which residency tie-broke to India. Two limits on the weight of the decision. The order cites no authority at all. And the tie-breaker was performed by the first appellate authority and upheld, not run by the Tribunal, which decided only the fresh-evidence ground and the s.6(1)(c) ground. The sentence previously quoted here was a digest headnote reproducing that headnote's own errors and has been replaced with para 22. The Tribunal never adjudicated whether the Act or an agreement recognises split residency: the Assessing Officer's holding that neither does is recorded at para 16 and left undecided. The order cites no authority at all, so it carries no support of its own. It is a decision on the India-United States agreement and on its own facts, and a later Mumbai Bench has said in terms that such an analysis may not be applicable to another individual. Nothing in it addresses the reporting obligations that follow the annual status under the Act - the schedules in the return and the foreign-asset regime - for a year in which the treaty has allocated part of the period away, and it does not address s.6(1A), which came in after the year in issue. 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 Revenue's appeal was dismissed, but on two narrow grounds and not on the tie-breaker. On the ground that the tax residency certificate was fresh evidence admitted without a remand report, the Tribunal held the point had no merit, because the first appellate authority made only a passing reference to the certificate and did not base his conclusion on it: he applied the test of closer personal and economic relations, having found a permanent home available in both States, and his conclusions on the facts and the supporting evidence could not be faulted (para 21). On the ground that he had held the assessee non-resident without any finding under s.6(1)(c), the Tribunal held that the test of residency in this case is based on Article 4 of the agreement, so that provision does not assume any importance and no finding on it was called for (para 22). The split-residency proposition was never adjudicated: the Assessing Officer's holding that neither the Act nor the agreement recognises the concept (para 16) is recorded and then left alone. Split residency is the practical effect of the outcome, not the ratio, and the decision should not be cited as authority that the concept is recognised. Nothing was restored to the Assessing Officer.
TaxSphere, “Dy CIT v Kumar Sanjeev Ranjan”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/dcit-v-kumar-sanjeev-ranjan-split-residency/ (validity last checked 2026-08-23)
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.
I work abroad on deputation and came back to India for a few weeks. Do those days count against me under the 60-day test?
I hold a Mauritius TRC. Can the department still deny me treaty relief on the capital gains?
We outsource back-office work to our Indian subsidiary. Does that give us a permanent establishment in India?
My protocol has an MFN clause and I applied the lower rate India later agreed with an OECD member. Was I entitled to?
