Section 6(1)(c) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 6(1)(c), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
DIT v Manoj Kumar Reddy Nare
High CourtHelps taxpayer
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.
-
Dy CIT v Kumar Sanjeev Ranjan
ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
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.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.
