Residential Status of Ex-Flipkart COO: ITAT Upholds Assessment Treating Him as Resident of India Under Income Tax Act and India-Singapore DTAA [Read Order]

In a recent development, the Bangalore Benchof Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) zeroed in on the issue of residential status of Binny Bansal in an appeal arising out of the assessment year 2020-21, where he had challenged the assessment order treating him as a resident of India and taxing his global income.

The assessee, Binny Bansal, appealed against the final assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer was believed to have assessed the total income at a higher figure of Rs. 10,81,93,95,700 than the income returned, on the ground that the assessee was a resident of India under Section 6(1)(c) of the Act.

The assessee contended that he qualified as a person who "being outside India, comes on a visit to India", making him classifiable as a Non-Resident. He argued that he had visited India for less than 182 days during the relevant previous year. It was submitted that Explanation 1(b) to Section 6(1)(c) extended the 60-day threshold to 182 days and that the expression “being outside India” could not be equated with “being a non-resident”. Reliance was placed on Explanation 1(a) to establish that the assessee had left India for the purpose of employment abroad.

The assessee further claimed that he was a tax resident of Singapore under Article 4 of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and even if dual residency were assumed, the tie-breaker tests relating to “permanent home, centre of vital interests and habitual abode” favoured Singapore.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel, holding that the assessee was a resident of India under domestic law. It was found that he is not entitled to the relaxation in the period of stay as envisaged under clause (a) or (b) to Explanation 1.

On the treaty issue, the Tribunal referred to Ashok Kumar Pandey v. ACIT, which established the test that “an individual is resident of the state in which he has a centre of vital interest being where his personal and economic relations are closer.” The Tribunal ultimately accepted the Revenue’s view that the assessee’s permanent home, economic interests and habitual abode were in India during the relevant year.

Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed.

The order was pronounced on January 9, 2026, by a bench comprising Prashant Maharishi (Vice President) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member).

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates