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?
No, on these facts. The Karnataka High Court declined to interfere with a concurrent finding that, excluding the time during which the assessee was visiting India, he was not in India for the requisite 60 days, so he was a non-resident and could not be taxed as a resident under s.6(1)(c). The Revenue's appeal was dismissed for want of a substantial question of law.
Decided by the High Court (High Court of Karnataka — V. G. Sabhahit and Ravi Malimath, JJ.) on 2011-06-20, reported as [2011] 12 taxmann.com 326 / 201 Taxman 30 / 245 CTR 350 (Kar.)(HC); IT Appeal No. 431 of 2009. It bears on section 6, section 6(1), section 6(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Residence & Treaty Benefit and Salary & Perquisites matters.
It is the only High Court decision located on the day count under s.6(1)(c) for a person working abroad who returns to India on a visit, and it is the appellate history of the Bangalore Tribunal order that later day-count orders rely on. That appellate history is now the more important half. The Tribunal order it affirmed is the one that reasons out the exclusion of the day of arrival, by importing the word 'from' and applying s.9 of the General Clauses Act, and later Benches treat this judgment as the authority for that exclusion precisely because it confirmed that order - although the arrival-day reasoning is the Tribunal's and not the High Court's own. It also shows the shape the argument has to take: the count is a finding of fact on material, and a High Court will not disturb it unless it is perverse. The Court recorded that the assessee remained an employee of the Indian company while working in the United States on deputation and held that this did not displace the concurrent finding.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee was an employee of an Indian information technology company which issued a deputation letter on 23 January 2004 directing him to work with designated customers on specified projects, the location being Chicago, United States, while he continued to be its employee. For assessment year 2005-06 the revenue's case was that he had been in India for 78 days in the year under appeal and for more than 365 days in the four preceding years, so that he was a resident under s.6(1)(c) and taxable as such under the Act and under the India-United States treaty. The authorities below relied on a certificate dated 18 January 2008 from a residential landlord recording that he lived at an apartment in Chicago from 20 March 2004 to 9 April 2005, and the Tribunal found that he was on deputation from April 2004 to January 2005 and that his stay in India from 18 August 2004 to 6 September 2004 was a visit. The Tribunal, excluding the period of that visit, held that he was not in India for the requisite number of days and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer; the revenue appealed against its order of 3 April 2009 in ITA No. 1020/Bang/08.
The appeal was dismissed. The concurrent finding that, excluding the time during which he was visiting India, the assessee was not in India for the requisite 60 days in the current year and was therefore a non-resident who could not be taxed as a resident under s.6(1)(c), was well founded on all the available material and could not be said to be perverse or arbitrary. No substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal's order, reported as Manoj Kumar Reddy v. ITO [2009] 34 SOT 180 (Bang.), was thereby affirmed. The framed question also raised the India-United States treaty, but that limb was never separately decided.
The Court recorded that the material showed the assessee was to work in the United States on the basis of the deputation letter, though he continued to be an employee of the Indian company, and that the authorities below had relied on the landlord's certificate of his residence in Chicago and on the finding that his stay in India between 18 August and 6 September 2004 was a visit. It then treated the day count as a concurrent finding of fact reached on all the available material, held that it was well founded and not perverse or arbitrary, and declined to interfere. The decision is, on its own terms, an affirmation of a concurrent finding rather than a considered construction of the statute, and that is worth keeping in view when citing it: what the Court approved was the exclusion of the period of a visit to India from the 60-day count in s.6(1)(c).
However, there is a concurrent finding by the Assessing Officer, the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, that excluding the time during which he was visiting India, the requisite number of days, that is 60 days during the current year, the assessee was not in India and therefore, he is to be treated as non-resident and cannot be taxed as a resident under section 6(1)(c).
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 WhatsAppNo, on these facts. The Karnataka High Court declined to interfere with a concurrent finding that, excluding the time during which the assessee was visiting India, he was not in India for the requisite 60 days, so he was a non-resident and could not be taxed as a resident under s.6(1)(c). The Revenue's appeal was dismissed for want of a substantial question of law. This was decided by the High Court (High Court of Karnataka — V. G. Sabhahit and Ravi Malimath, JJ.) and bears on section 6, section 6(1), section 6(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2011] 12 taxmann.com 326 / 201 Taxman 30 / 245 CTR 350 (Kar.)(HC); IT Appeal No. 431 of 2009. It is the only High Court decision located on the day count under s.6(1)(c) for a person working abroad who returns to India on a visit, and it is the appellate history of the Bangalore Tribunal order that later day-count orders rely on. That appellate history is now the more important half. The Tribunal order it affirmed is the one that reasons out the exclusion of the day of arrival, by importing the word 'from' and applying s.9 of the General Clauses Act, and later Benches treat this judgment as the authority for that exclusion precisely because it confirmed that order - although the arrival-day reasoning is the Tribunal's and not the High Court's own. It also shows the shape the argument has to take: the count is a finding of fact on material, and a High Court will not disturb it unless it is perverse. The Court recorded that the assessee remained an employee of the Indian company while working in the United States on deputation and held that this did not displace the concurrent finding. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Put the deputation letter, the foreign assignment terms and the dated travel record on the file at the assessment stage, because this is decided as a finding of fact on material and the finding is what an appellate court will look at.
The assessee was an employee of an Indian information technology company which issued a deputation letter on 23 January 2004 directing him to work with designated customers on specified projects, the location being Chicago, United States, while he continued to be its employee. For assessment year 2005-06 the revenue's case was that he had been in India for 78 days in the year under appeal and for more than 365 days in the four preceding years, so that he was a resident under s.6(1)(c) and taxable as such under the Act and under the India-United States treaty. The authorities below relied on a certificate dated 18 January 2008 from a residential landlord recording that he lived at an apartment in Chicago from 20 March 2004 to 9 April 2005, and the Tribunal found that he was on deputation from April 2004 to January 2005 and that his stay in India from 18 August 2004 to 6 September 2004 was a visit. The Tribunal, excluding the period of that visit, held that he was not in India for the requisite number of days and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer; the revenue appealed against its order of 3 April 2009 in ITA No. 1020/Bang/08. The matter was decided on 2011-06-20 by the High Court (High Court of Karnataka — V. G. Sabhahit and Ravi Malimath, JJ.). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeal was dismissed. The concurrent finding that, excluding the time during which he was visiting India, the assessee was not in India for the requisite 60 days in the current year and was therefore a non-resident who could not be taxed as a resident under s.6(1)(c), was well founded on all the available material and could not be said to be perverse or arbitrary. No substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal's order, reported as Manoj Kumar Reddy v. ITO [2009] 34 SOT 180 (Bang.), was thereby affirmed. The framed question also raised the India-United States treaty, but that limb was never separately decided.
The Court recorded that the material showed the assessee was to work in the United States on the basis of the deputation letter, though he continued to be an employee of the Indian company, and that the authorities below had relied on the landlord's certificate of his residence in Chicago and on the finding that his stay in India between 18 August and 6 September 2004 was a visit. It then treated the day count as a concurrent finding of fact reached on all the available material, held that it was well founded and not perverse or arbitrary, and declined to interfere. The decision is, on its own terms, an affirmation of a concurrent finding rather than a considered construction of the statute, and that is worth keeping in view when citing it: what the Court approved was the exclusion of the period of a visit to India from the 60-day count in s.6(1)(c). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "However, there is a concurrent finding by the Assessing Officer, the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, that excluding the time during which he was visiting India, the requisite number of days, that is 60 days during the current year, the assessee was not in India and therefore, he is to be treated as non-resident and cannot be taxed as a resident under section 6(1)(c)."
It was decided by the High Court on 2011-06-20 and is reported as [2011] 12 taxmann.com 326 / 201 Taxman 30 / 245 CTR 350 (Kar.)(HC); IT Appeal No. 431 of 2009. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 6, section 6(1), section 6(1)(c), 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 appeal was dismissed. The concurrent finding that, excluding the time during which he was visiting India, the assessee was not in India for the requisite 60 days in the current year and was therefore a non-resident who could not be taxed as a resident under s.6(1)(c), was well founded on all the available material and could not be said to be perverse or arbitrary. No substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal's order, reported as Manoj Kumar Reddy v. ITO [2009] 34 SOT 180 (Bang.), was thereby affirmed. The framed question also raised the India-United States treaty, but that limb was never separately decided. It arises in Residence & Treaty Benefit and Salary & Perquisites matters, on section 6, section 6(1), section 6(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by High Court of Karnataka — V. G. Sabhahit and Ravi Malimath, JJ.. 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. Identify which limb of s.6(1) the officer is applying before arguing about visit days - this decision is about the second limb and the 60-day figure in it. Do not cite this judgment for excluding the day of arrival. It does not decide that point. Cite the Tribunal order it affirmed, Manoj Kumar Reddy v. ITO [2009] 34 SOT 180 (Bang.), paras 3.24 and 3.25, where the exclusion is reasoned on s.9 of the General Clauses Act - and say that no High Court has decided it. Expect the arrival-day point to be contested. The Authority for Advance Rulings in Petition No. 7 of 1995, In re [1997] 90 Taxman 62, holds at para 7 that both the entry day and the exit day count, and that a part-day counts; plead the point as open rather than as settled. Do not read the judgment as authority that a visit is excluded in every case; the Court upheld a finding on the material before it and said no substantial question of law arose. Where the client is over 182 days in the year itself, this decision does not help at all.
Still good law. It is followed on what it actually decides. Sanjay Bhaskar v. DCIT [2026] 182 taxmann.com 66 (Del.)(Trib.), 30 December 2025, records this judgment as followed at para 12, and Pradip Kumar Joshi v. ITO [2021] 133 taxmann.com 283/[2022] 192 ITD 577 (Ahd.)(Trib.), 29 October 2021, is to the same effect and is quoted in it. But a correction has to travel with that. At paras 10 and 15 the Delhi Bench excludes the day of arrival 'as held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Reddy'. This judgment holds no such thing. It has been read end to end - seven paragraphs - and the only question it frames is whether the period of a visit to India is excluded in computing the sixty days under s.6(1)(c); it does not mention the day of arrival and it does not mention the General Clauses Act. The arrival-day reasoning, resting on s.9 of the General Clauses Act, is in the Tribunal order this Court declined to disturb, Manoj Kumar Reddy v. ITO [2009] 34 SOT 180 (Bang.) at paras 3.24 and 3.25. Cite that order for the arrival-day convention, and say that no High Court has decided the point. 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 judgment was read in full and the facts, the reasoning and the quoted sentence come from its numbered paragraphs. Three cautions. The judgment never mentions Explanation 1(b) by name, and this entry previously described it as deciding the visit-day point under that Explanation. It does not: Explanation 1(b) substitutes 182 days for 60 days for a citizen or person of Indian origin who, being outside India, comes on a visit, and it does not authorise deducting visit days from the count. What the Court approved was the exclusion of the period of a visit from the 60-day count in s.6(1)(c), and the looseness in that is a real weakness of the decision which a citation should not paper over. Second, and this is now a stated correction rather than a suspicion: the judgment runs to seven paragraphs, frames only the visit-period question, and nowhere mentions the day of arrival or s.9 of the General Clauses Act. The Delhi Bench in Sanjay Bhaskar v. DCIT [2026] 182 taxmann.com 66 (Del.)(Trib.) nonetheless states at paras 10 and 15 that the day of arrival is excluded as held by this Court. It was not held here. It was held by the Bangalore Bench in the order this Court declined to disturb, Manoj Kumar Reddy v. ITO [2009] 34 SOT 180 (Bang.) at paras 3.24 and 3.25, and any page citing this judgment for the arrival-day convention is citing a holding it does not contain. Third, the procedural narrative as printed does not hang together - para 2 says the Assessing Officer assessed the status as non-resident and that the appellate authority confirmed him, while para 3 records a further appeal that was partly allowed and remitted. The concurrent finding referred to at para 6 is consistent with what this entry says, but the printed account of who appealed against what should not be paraphrased confidently. The framed question as printed says '385 days' where para 4 says 365; 365 is the statutory figure. The decision predates the 120-day limb and the Rs 15 lakh threshold introduced in 2020 and says nothing about them, and it predates the deeming provision in s.6(1A) entirely. It does not decide whether the day of arrival or the day of departure is counted: the arrival-day reasoning is in the Tribunal order it affirmed, no High Court has decided the point either way, and the only reasoned decision traced on the departure day and on part-days is an advance ruling which goes the other way and counts both boundary days. The treaty limb of the framed question was never separately decided, so it says nothing about the tie-breaker. 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 appeal was dismissed. The concurrent finding that, excluding the time during which he was visiting India, the assessee was not in India for the requisite 60 days in the current year and was therefore a non-resident who could not be taxed as a resident under s.6(1)(c), was well founded on all the available material and could not be said to be perverse or arbitrary. No substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal's order, reported as Manoj Kumar Reddy v. ITO [2009] 34 SOT 180 (Bang.), was thereby affirmed. The framed question also raised the India-United States treaty, but that limb was never separately decided.
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 left India to run my own business abroad, not for a job. Do I get the 182-day test?
I am resident in both India and the US. Which country wins under the treaty tie-breaker?
The AO counted 184 days and called me resident. Does the day I landed in India count?
I was stranded in India by the COVID flight ban in FY 2020-21. Am I resident now?