“ Section 5(2) ”

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court

658

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court

631

315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

363

Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

5 SCC 482 · 1997 · Supreme Court

261

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

For income to be assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, beneficial ownership or the right to enjoy the property is sufficient; legal ownership is not a mandatory prerequisite.

310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court

259

181 ITR 400 · 1990 · Supreme Court

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Rama Bai v. CIT

258

CIT v. Govindbhai Mamaiya

Interest income is taxable on either an accrual or cash basis, determined by accounting principles. This method was applicable prior to legislative changes that simplified the taxation of interest income.

91 Taxmann.com 20 · 2018 · Supreme Court

205

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Interest on enhanced compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the compensation, not merely interest income, and is exigible to tax on a receipt basis.

Judgments citing Section 5(2)

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5505/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5506/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2011-12 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5507/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2012-13 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5508/Mum/2025 Dcit- Circle 1(3)(1) A.Y: 2013-14 Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs Diebold India Private Limited Rolta Tower-1, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 39, Central Road, Midc, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 Pan – Aabcd633Ον (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No. 308/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025) Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Co. No. 309/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5506/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2011-12 With Co. No. 310/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5507/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2012-13 With Co. No. 311/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5508/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2013-14 Diebold India Private Limited Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar/ Shri Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee Challenging The Different Impugned Orders Dt. 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 04.06.2025 & 04.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Appeals & Cross Objections Is Common & Identical & Belongs To One Assessee Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

ITA 5507/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

chargeable under the head 'Salaries'. But on the payments, such as interest, royalty, fees for technical services. 5.5.4.3. As per the provisions of Section 5(2)(b) of the Act, the total income of a non-resident also includes all income which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

ITA 5506/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5505/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 7988/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mrigesh Gaurav, Bangalore vs. ITO Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)(ii)

services rendered outside India during the said assignment period was not chargeable to tax in India in view of the provisions of section 5(2) of the Act and section 9(1)(ii) read with Article 16(1) of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). According ... that the salary attributable to services rendered outside India is not chargeable to tax in India having regard to the provisions of section 5(2) read with section 9(1)(ii) of the Act and Article 16 of the India-USA DTAA. In support of this contention, reliance

ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni, Medak

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1821/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1821/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni, (International Taxation)-1, Medak. Hyderabad. Pan: Aztpd7575K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Hyd/2026 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1821/Hyd/2025) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni, (International Taxation)-1, Medak. Hyderabad. Pan: Aztpd7575K (Appellant In Appeal) (Respondent/Cross Objector) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sudarshan, Ca Shri Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sv Siva Prasad, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, Dated 19.08.2025, Co No.01/Hyd/2026 Ito (It)-1, Hyd Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni

For Appellant: Shri Sudarshan, CAFor Respondent: Shri SV Siva Prasad, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

that such withdrawals were utilized elsewhere. 14. In our view, in the case of a non-resident, what is chargeable to tax under Section 5(2) of the Act is the income received or deemed to be received in India or income accruing or arising or deemed to accrue

Superhouse Limited, Kanpur vs. CIT, International Taxation-3, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

subsidiaries was within the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) and were deemed to arise and accrue in India as per section 5(2) r.w.s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, she held that the assessee was liable to deduct the tax at source on the commission paid

ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

from commission payment to non-resident have arose in India and is taxable under the Act in view of the specific provision of section 5(2)(b) r.w.s. 9(1)(i) of the IT Act, and thus, the AO has correctly made addition of Rs.25,55,75,035/- on account ... ground that no tax was deducted at source under section 195 of the Act. The AO held that in view of section 5(2)(b) read with section 9(1)(i) of the Act, the income in the hands of such agents was deemed to accrue or arise in India

Lic Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6974/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhandari and Sri Shreyas Shah,(Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 153(5)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 5(2)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Lic Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6973/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhandari and Sri Shreyas Shah,(Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 153(5)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 5(2)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Lic Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6972/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhandari and Sri Shreyas Shah,(Adv.) and Amicus CuriaeFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 153(5)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 5(2)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Kaushal Ganpatbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(Intl. Taxation), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: 04.02.2026

Section 147Section 5Section 5(2)(a)Section 6

account to the tune of Rs. 44,24,000/-. The same was treated as taxable in India as per the provisions of Section 5(2)(a) of the Act, as per which the all incomes of assesses being non-residents, received or deemed to be received in India is liable ... salary in the NRE Account of the assessee tantamounted to receipt of salary in India and hence in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(2)(a) of the Act the same was liable to tax in India. 5. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. Counsel

Youcloud Dmcc, Dubai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram

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

ITA 1220/DEL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(d)Section 201(1)

There ought to be any income/receipt chargeable to Tax in India. 8......" 6.3 The assessee has relied upon the provisions of section 5(2) of the Act wherein the income of the non-resident would include all income from whatever source derived which (a) is received or is deemed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajen Kirtilal Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5438/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmil JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 68

Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Assessee received Form 5 being order for full and final settlement of tax arrears under Section 5(2) read with Section 6 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 [Acknowledgement No.634768301270522, dated 27/05/2022.] 6. On 30/06/2021 the Assessing Officer issued

Sms Group Gmbh, Delhi vs. ACIT.Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 377/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

ITA 993/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(2), International Txation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

ITA 3297/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 3(1)(2) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

ITA 1592/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

ITA 1591/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR