S. 6(1) : Residence in India-Individual -Stayed more than 60 days in each year-More than 365 days in India for a period or periods amounting to all to 365 days or more-More than 183 days for AY. 2013 -14 & 2014-15-Control and management office is located in Chennai , India-Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) data and travelling on a social / tourist visa-Business not the purpose of the travel interest-Resident-Global income taxable and credit available to assesse-Credit for Foreign taxes paid is directed to be allowed, subject to verification-DTAA-India-UAE. [S. 6(1)(a), 6(1)(c), 6(4), 90, 91, 132, Art. 4]
The assessee is a well-known restaurateur with business interests in India and abroad. During a search and seizure conducted by tax authorities, it was revealed that the assessee had been declaring himself as a non-resident and was not reporting his global income in India. The ITAT accepted the reliance placed by AO on the data from the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), to show that the assessee was staying for more than 182 days and thus was a resident of India u/s 6. It also accepted that the nature of his overseas travel, which was mostly on tourist or social visas was not for employment purposes. As a result, the lower threshold of 60 days for determining residency applied instead of the 182 day rule. The ITAT also clarified that merely having business interests or frequently travelling abroad does not confer non-resident status if the travel is not for employment, and the India-UAE DTAA would not be applicable if the requirements of section 6 are fulfilled. Therefore, the assessee’s global income was liable to be taxed in India, though he was allowed foreign tax credit for taxes paid abroad. (ITA Nos 1824 /1825 /1826/Chy/2024 dt. 30-5-2025)(AY. 2013-14, 2014 -15, 2019-20)
DCIT v. M. Mahadevan (Chennai )(Trib.) www.itatonline.org.
(Coram : Hon’ble Shri SS Viswanethra Ravi, JM and Hon’ble Shri Amitabh Shukla, AM)