9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the status of the assessee was not that of "resident but not ordinarily resident". 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in interpreting the provisions of section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Status of the Assessee The Tribunal held that the assessee's status was "resident" and not "not ordinarily resident" based on the provisions of section 6(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had resided in India for a significant number of days over the last nine years, thus not fulfilling the conditions to be classified as "not ordinarily resident". The assessee's stay in India for the relevant year was 196 days, exceeding the threshold of 182 days u/s 6(1)(a), making him a resident. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 6 The Tribunal interpreted section 6(6) correctly, noting that to be "not ordinarily resident", the individual must not have been a resident in India for nine out of the ten preceding years or must not have stayed in India for 730 days or more during the last seven years. The assessee did not meet these criteria as he was a resident for eight out of ten years and stayed in India for 1,402 days in the last seven years. Tribunal's Findings: - The Tribunal confirmed the Income-tax Officer's assessment that the assessee was a resident in India. - The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessee did not qualify as "not ordinarily resident". Legal Precedents and Arguments: - The assessee's counsel cited various cases and interpretations, arguing that the assessee should be considered "not ordinarily resident" if he was not a resident for nine out of ten years. - The Tribunal and the High Court found these arguments unconvincing, emphasizing the clear statutory criteria in section 6(6). High Court's Conclusion: - The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Tribunal was justified in its interpretation and application of section 6(6). - Question No. 1 was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue. - Question No. 2 was answered in the negative, also in favor of the Revenue. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
