Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that as per article 4(2)(a) of Indo-US DTAA, an individual is resident of state in which he has center of vital interest being where his personal and economical relations are closer. Accordingly, assessee treated as resident of India as has personal and economic relationship more close in India.
Facts- For the year under consideration, assessee has claimed that assessee is resident in India as well as in United States of America. Thus, the residential status of the assessee is required to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Double Tax Avoidance Agreement [DTAA] between India and USA. The assessee submits that his Centre of Vital Interest lies in USA and, therefore, in terms of Article 4(2)(a) he is a resident of USA.
However, AO issued a show cause notice that why assessee should not be treated as resident of India for tax purposes and his US income should also not be taxed in India u/s. 5 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 03.2016 was passed determining total income of the assessee at ₹43,56,363/-.
CIT(A) held that as per Section 5 of the Act , if an individual is residing for more than 183 days in India he would be considered as Resident in India and his entire global income would be taxable in India. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
