What is DCIT v. Finlay Corporation Ltd. authority for?

Income not taxable in the hands of a non-resident under Section 5(2) cannot be taxed under Sections 68 or 69 of the Income Tax Act, as these sections cannot enlarge the scope of Section 5(2).

How many judgments cite DCIT v. Finlay Corporation Ltd.?

22 judgments on BharatTax cite DCIT v. Finlay Corporation Ltd. (86 ITD 626), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DCIT v. Finlay Corporation Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 5(2), Section 142(1), Section 144C(13), Section 68.

DCIT v. Finlay Corporation Ltd. (86 ITD 626)

FTSA HOLDINGS B.V.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(1)), BANGALORE , BENGALURU

In the result ground No. 3-8 of the Appeal are allowed

ITA 643/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year:2019-20 M/S. Ftsa Holdings B.V. The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Bbmp Khata, No. 937/138 Of Income Tax & 139/38/1, Sy. No. 138, International Taxation, Yelahanka Village &Hobli, Vs. Circle 1(1), Bengaluru - 560064 Bangalore. Pan: Aaecf0420A Appellant Respondent : Shri Aakash Uppal, Ca & Assessee By Shri Deepanshu Grovar, Ca : Shri Aseem Sharma, Cit-Dr Revenue By ` Date Of Hearing : 14-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-12-2025

For Respondent: Shri Aakash Uppal, CA &

Section 131Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 69

…ition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable 9. The Ld. Authorised Representative further referred to the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Finlay Corporation Ltd (86 ITD 626) wherein it has been held that if the income is not taxable in the hands of a non-resident taxpayer under section 5 (2) of the act, that same cannot be held taxable in view of provisions of section 69 of the Income Tax Act. 10. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted and supported the orders of the Ld. lower authorities. On the i…

KULDEEP MARWAH,KAITHAL vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX, GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Kuldeep Marwah, Vs Dcit, House No.221/10, International Taxation, Marwah Cottage, Gurgaon. Karnal Road, Kaithal, Haryana – 136 027. Pan: Aiapm5225F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shaatanu Jain, Advocate & Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Shaatanu Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 195Section 69A

…dent, same could not have been made taxable, as they are beyond the scope of section 5(2) and certainly not taxable u/s 68 of the Act. Reliance can be placed on the decisions of the the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Finlay Corp. Ltd. (2003) 86 ITD 626 and coordinate bench of Delhi in the case of Russian Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle-13, New Delhi (ITA No.4932, 4933, 5390 & 5391/Del/2011, the Bangalore Bench in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018, order dated 28.10.2022, the Jaipur Bench in the case of Ravindra Gaur vs. ITO, ITA…

ANIL DHANSUKHLAL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT. TAXATION) GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/RJT/2024[A Y 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.68/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2018-19) Anil Dhansukhlal Income Tax Officer बनाम Vakhat Niwas 10, Divan Para (Int.Txn), Gandhidham, Vs. Rajkot -360 001 Amruta Estate Building, Jheelwas, Sadar, Rajkot- 360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ajypd6405F "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 139Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

…ssee under s. 68 of the Act. Consequently, additions made on this count as raised in grounds of appeal are deleted. Assessee's grounds of appeal on this issue are allowed. 14. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Finlay Corporation Ltd. [2003] 86 ITD 626 (DELHI), on identical facts held as follows: “However, the conflict between the provisions is only with reference to the onus and not to the issue of taxability of income.The onus is shifted under section 68 or 69 only with reference to the income which is otherwise taxable in the hands ofnon-resident under section 5(2). Therefore, the issue whet…

THE DY CIT (IT)-CIRCLE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MANISH VIJAY MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

…Nos 138,142,266,267,286,289/M/2019 dtd 10/9/2020 (Mum)(Trib) [P.Book III Pg 1-43] Addition of deposit in foreign bank account was deleted as AO could not prove that initial deposit was earned from a source in India. DCIT v. Finlay Corporation Limited [2003] 86 ITD 626 (Delhi) (Trib.) Income of non-resident is taxable or not has to be decided with reference to the provisions of s. 5(2) and what is not taxable under s. 5(2) cannot be taxed under s. 68 or 69.If any income is already received outside India, the same cannot be taxed in India merely on the ground that it is brought in India by way of remittances. P…

THE DY CIT (IT)-CIRCLE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MANISH VIJAY MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

…Nos 138,142,266,267,286,289/M/2019 dtd 10/9/2020 (Mum)(Trib) [P.Book III Pg 1-43] Addition of deposit in foreign bank account was deleted as AO could not prove that initial deposit was earned from a source in India. DCIT v. Finlay Corporation Limited [2003] 86 ITD 626 (Delhi) (Trib.) Income of non-resident is taxable or not has to be decided with reference to the provisions of s. 5(2) and what is not taxable under s. 5(2) cannot be taxed under s. 68 or 69.If any income is already received outside India, the same cannot be taxed in India merely on the ground that it is brought in India by way of remittances. P…

THE DY CIT (IT)-CIRCLE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. URVI MANISH MEHRA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

…Nos 138,142,266,267,286,289/M/2019 dtd 10/9/2020 (Mum)(Trib) [P.Book III Pg 1-43] Addition of deposit in foreign bank account was deleted as AO could not prove that initial deposit was earned from a source in India. DCIT v. Finlay Corporation Limited [2003] 86 ITD 626 (Delhi) (Trib.) Income of non-resident is taxable or not has to be decided with reference to the provisions of s. 5(2) and what is not taxable under s. 5(2) cannot be taxed under s. 68 or 69.If any income is already received outside India, the same cannot be taxed in India merely on the ground that it is brought in India by way of remittances. P…

THE DY CIT (IT)-CIRCLE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. URVI MANISH MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

…Nos 138,142,266,267,286,289/M/2019 dtd 10/9/2020 (Mum)(Trib) [P.Book III Pg 1-43] Addition of deposit in foreign bank account was deleted as AO could not prove that initial deposit was earned from a source in India. DCIT v. Finlay Corporation Limited [2003] 86 ITD 626 (Delhi) (Trib.) Income of non-resident is taxable or not has to be decided with reference to the provisions of s. 5(2) and what is not taxable under s. 5(2) cannot be taxed under s. 68 or 69.If any income is already received outside India, the same cannot be taxed in India merely on the ground that it is brought in India by way of remittances. P…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

…f Section 5 does not permit taxation of amounts remitted to India from sources outside India which are not incomes under the provisions of the Act. This issue was discussed elaborately by the co-ordinate bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Finlay Corporation Ltd., [86 ITD 626], Delhi, wherein it was held as under: "The issue whether the income of non-resident is taxable or not is still to be decided with reference to the provisions of section 5(2) and, the provisions of Section 68 or 69 cannot enlarge the scope of section 5(2). What is not taxable under section 5(2) cannot be taxed under the provisions of section 68 o…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

…f Section 5 does not permit taxation of amounts remitted to India from sources outside India which are not incomes under the provisions of the Act. This issue was discussed elaborately by the co-ordinate bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Finlay Corporation Ltd., [86 ITD 626], Delhi, wherein it was held as under: "The issue whether the income of non-resident is taxable or not is still to be decided with reference to the provisions of section 5(2) and, the provisions of Section 68 or 69 cannot enlarge the scope of section 5(2). What is not taxable under section 5(2) cannot be taxed under the provisions of section 68 o…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

…f Section 5 does not permit taxation of amounts remitted to India from sources outside India which are not incomes under the provisions of the Act. This issue was discussed elaborately by the co-ordinate bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Finlay Corporation Ltd., [86 ITD 626], Delhi, wherein it was held as under: "The issue whether the income of non-resident is taxable or not is still to be decided with reference to the provisions of section 5(2) and, the provisions of Section 68 or 69 cannot enlarge the scope of section 5(2). What is not taxable under section 5(2) cannot be taxed under the provisions of section 68 o…

THE ITO(INTE.TAXA)-1, AHMEDABAD vs. MADHAV VASANT DALVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue is rejected and the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 995/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu Das, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv. &

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…hargeable under Section 5(2) and the provisions of Section 69A cannot override the provisions of Section 5(2). 6.4. This view of ours is being supported by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Finlay Corp, Ltd. [2003] 86 ITD 626 held as follows: "Section 68, read with section 6, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits [Non- residents] - Assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer taking a view that assessee was a resident of India, made certain addition to his taxable income under section 68 - Tribunal having determined thai…

ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. MADHUSUDAN RAO LAGADAPATI, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 449/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…f Section 5 does not permit taxation of amounts remitted to India from sources outside India which are not incomes under the provisions of the Act. This issue was discussed elaborately by the co-ordinate bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Finlay Corporation Ltd., [86 ITD 626], Delhi, wherein it was held as under: "The issue whether the income of non-resident is taxable or not is still to be decided with reference to the provisions of section 5(2) and, the provisions of Section 68 or 69 cannot enlarge the scope of section 5(2). What is not taxable under section 5(2) cannot be taxed under the provisions of section 68 o…

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas (Special Counsel of Deptt)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 220(2)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…shed and the money has come in through banking channels, it would constitute a capital receipt and ordinarily cannot be treated as deemed income under s. 68 or 69 of the Act. This is clarified by the CBDT circular itself. ”  DCIT v Finlay Corporation Limited 86 ITD 626 [Delhi Tribunal]. The Tribunal after considering the scope of Section 5(2) of the Act and relying on the Circular 5 of 1969 categorically held that Section 68 of the Act has no application to the non-residents. The relevant observation of the Hon‟ble Tribunal is as under: 18 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai "As regards the que…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI ARUN MAHVACHARI RANGACHARI, MUMBAI

In the result revenues appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 677/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 132Section 147Section 148

…the tribunal has very categorically stated that AO cannot ask the source of the money unless the officer has with him incriminating documents (DCIT Vs Shri Madhusudan Rao Lagadapati (Hyderabad Tribunal ITA No. 1482/2014). In DC1T vs Finlay Corporation Ltd., (86 ITD 626) Delhi. In this case it was very strongly decided that sec. 68 & sec. 69 have limited application in the case of non-resident. The Tribunal was of the opinion that only those amounts whose source 6 Shri Arun Madhvachari Rangachari originated in India can come under the ambit of the investigation. In the light of above this discussion addition ma…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PRIMELAND REAL ESTATES PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1365/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…and Rolling Mill (HC) 12 ITO vs Primeland Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. (iii) Order dated 8th January 2008 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs M/S Pondy Metal & Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. in SLP No. 12860 of 2007 (iv) Finlay Corporation Ltd reported in 86 ITD 626 (Del.) (v) Saraswati Holding Corpn. In. vs DDIT reported in 111 TTJ 334 (Del.) 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also considered the material available on record. We find considerable merit in the submissions advanced by the Ld. AR. The AO has not doubted the genuineness of FIRCs furnished by the assessee. Share Capital has been rem…