Ranjit Kumar Bose v. ITO

18 ITD 230Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1986#12299 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 15 Section 16(1)Section 234B Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)section 90 non-resident salary previous year india total income interest

Judgments citing Ranjit Kumar Bose v. ITO

Prakash Raman, Vadodara vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1115/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1115/2025 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Prakash Raman, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pent House No.602, 6Th Floor, (International Taxation), Pincode@55, Vasant Vihar Road, Ward-2(1), Tp-1, Opp. To Darshanam Chennai. Splendora, Bhayli, Vadodara, Gujarat-391 410. [Pan:Aappp0380F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, C.A (Virtual). प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mrs. R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr.Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Mrs. R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 234BSection 5Section 90

…. Therefore, salary for the entire year is not taxable. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following decisions:-  DIT (International Taxation) v. PrahladVijendra Rao [2011] 198 Taxman 551/10 taxmann.com 238 (Kar.)  Ranjit Kumar Bose v. ITO [1986] 18 ITD 230 (Cal.):  CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan [2001] 247 ITR 260/115 Taxman 536 (Bom.):  Sreenivas Kumar Sistla (AAR No.514 of 2000) 14. The assessee in a gist referred to the following case laws: CASE LAW COMPILATION S.No. Party Citation Page 1. NanthakumarMurugesan Vs. The IT(TP)A No. No. 12/Chny/2018 1-12 Income Tax Officer, 2. Shri Ramesh Kumar AE,…

Shri Santanu Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 41/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 144Section 250

…e India for a period of 225 days and the income in question earned by assessee has not accrued in India and is not deemed to have accrued in India. As such the contention of the revenue cannot be accepted.” 4.5. In the case of Ranjit Kumar Bose vs. ITO (1986) 18 ITD 230 (Cal.) Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata Bench has held that “Salary chargeable to tax on the basis irrespective of the fact whether it is received in India and therefore, for a non- resident where services are rendered outside India the same is approved outside India and hence, not taxable in India irrespective of the place of the resident.” 5. Going over th…

Gautam Arora, Chennai vs. DCIT(International Taxation)-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 354/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 354/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Gautam Arora Dcit, (International Taxation)- Flat No. 052, Block 40 Vs 1(1), Kolkata Dlf Garden City Near Psbb Millenium School Omr, Thalambur Chennai - 603103 [Pan : Aerpa7725B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.A. Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 17/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 128 (One Hundred Twenty Eight) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of Covid-19 Which Has Been Excluded By 2

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R

Section 250Section 5(2)

…India. Therefore, salary for the entire year is not taxable. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following decisions:- DIT (Intnl. Taxation) v Prahlad Vijendra Rao (2011) 198 Taxman 551 (Kar.)/(2011) 24 CTR Kar.) 107; Ranjit Kumar Bose v ITO (1986) 18 ITD 230 (Calcutta ITAT); CIT v Avtar Singh Wadhwan (2001) 247 ITR 260 (Bom.); Sreenivas Kumar Sistla (AAR No.514 of 2000).” 10. From perusal of the above decisions and examining the facts of the instant case in light thereof, we find that the same is squarely applicable in favour of the assessee and further, to test the same in light of relevant provision…

Shri Unni Krishnan Vadakkedath Sugathan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Unni Krishnan Vadakkedath Sugathan, C/O G.P. Kapadia 61A, Mittal Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aappu3300G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (It)-4(3)(1), Room No. 1625, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sh. Kirit Mehta/Ankit V. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sh. Kirit Mehta/Ankit V. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 90

…eltz (2013) 35 taxman.com 424(Del.-Trib)  ITO Vs Avtar Singh Wadhwan 247 ITR 260 (Bomb).  DIT( I.T Tax) Vs Prahalad Vijendra Rao (2011) 198 taxman 551 (Kar.) 5 ITA No. 781/Mum/2022-Shri Unni Krishnan Vadakkedath Sugathan  Ranjit Kumar Bose Vs ITO( 1986) 18 ITD 230(Kol.-trib)  OECD Commentary to model tax convention 2017 edition  UN Commentary to model tax convention 2011 edition 7. In view of the above facts on records and applicable judicial pronouncement we set aside the order of AO and directed to delete the addition on account of ESOPs in the hands of the assessee vested to him during the period 01-10…

Mr. Debabrata Datta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 453/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5Section 74Section 90(4)

Ashish Bhardwaj, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-36(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9232/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rano Mukherjee, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(30)Section 5(1)Section 6Section 6(1)Section 69A

…(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with regard to scope of income. We have considered all the facts of the case and we find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Ranjit Kumar Bose vs. ITO reported in 18 ITD 230 (ITAT - Calcutta) where it is held as under :- "14. True, in this case, salary income accrued outside India, but was received in India in the same accounting year. It is clear that salary income could not have been brought to tax on accrual basis for the simple reason that it accrued outside India. The provisions of section 5(2)(a) are subject to…

Avdesh Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 747/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Avdesh Kumar Dcit, H. No.-941, Krishna Nagar, Vs Circle-1 Bagu, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan Aurpk6861G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.Vipin Garg, Ca Sh Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2018 Order

Section 6Section 90

Gautam Harikishan Kamdar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(1)It, Mumbai

ITA 362/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 362/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 6

…India. Therefore, salary for the entire year is not taxable. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following decisions:- DIT (Intnl. Taxation) v PrahladVijendra Rao (2011) 198 Taxman 551 (Kar.)/(2011) 24 CTR Kar.) 107; Ranjit Kumar Bose v ITO (1986) 18 ITD 230 (Calcutta ITAT); CIT v Avtar Singh Wadhwan (2001) 247 ITR 260 (Bom.); Sreenivas Kumar Sistla (AAR No.514 of 2000). 12.9 For the aforesaid reasons, the salary which was received by the assessee for the services rendered in Japan for the period 1/4/2005 to 31/3/2006 is not liable to tax in India. Apart from this, Ld. AR also relied upon the judgme…