An individual's residential status for AY 2020-21 was determined under s.6(1)(c) as the individual exceeded both thresholds (≥365 days in preceding four years and ≥60 days in the relevant year), and the relaxation to 182 days under Explanation 1(a)/(b) was held inapplicable because it is confined to specified cases (leaving India or non-residents "being outside India") and cannot be extended to ordinary visits; accordingly, the individual was held resident in India. Applying Article 4 India-Singapore DTAA, the "permanent home/centre of vital interests" and habitual abode factors showed closer economic ties with India, and nationality also supported India; treaty tie-breaker therefore treated the individual as India resident. Objection to jurisdiction based on s.143(2) notice issuance was rejected due to participation in assessment proceedings. - ITAT
An individual's residential status for AY 2020-21 was determined under s.6(1)(c) as the individual exceeded both thresholds (≥365 days in preceding four years and ≥60 days in the relevant year), and the relaxation to 182 days under Explanation 1(a)/(b) was held inapplicable because it is confined to specified cases (leaving India or non-residents "being outside India") and cannot be extended to ordinary visits; accordingly, the individual was held resident in India. Applying Article 4 India-Singapore DTAA, the "permanent home/centre of vital interests" and habitual abode factors showed closer economic ties with India, and nationality also supported India; treaty tie-breaker therefore treated the individual as India resident. Objection to jurisdiction based on s.143(2) notice issuance was rejected due to participation in assessment proceedings. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
