“Section 5(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 5Section 5(2)355 judgments

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

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

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

chargeable under the\nhead 'Salaries'. But on the payments, such as interest, royalty, fees for\ntechnical services.\n5.5.4.3. As per the provisions of Section 5(2)(b) of the Act, the total income\nof a non-resident also includes all income which accrues or arises or is\ndeemed 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

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

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 and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

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

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOS filed by the assessee stand dismissed

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

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

MRIGESH GAURAV,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD 42(2)(4),, MUMBAI

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

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

services rendered outside India during\nthe said assignment period was not chargeable to tax in India\nin view of the provisions of section 5(2) of the Act and section\n9(1)(ii) read with Article 16(1) of the India-USA Double\nTaxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). According

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, 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

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

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

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

{ "clean_text": "Page 1\nITA No. 6972, 6973& 6974/Mum/2024\nA.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08\nM/s LIC Housing Finance

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

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

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

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

{ "clean_text": "Page 1\nITA No. 6972, 6973& 6974/Mum/2024\nA.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08\nM/s LIC Housing Finance

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\nonly

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

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

nThere ought to be any income/receipt chargeable to Tax in India.\n8......\"\n6.3 The assessee has relied upon the provisions of section 5(2) of the Act\nwherein the income of the non-resident would include all income from whatever\nsource derived which\n(a) is received or is deemed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19(3), MUMBAI, 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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

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

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 544/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

employees rendered in India and the assessee, being an Indian entity, was the beneficiary of such services. By virtue of section 5(2) and Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, the income was deemed to accrue or arise in India because the situs of the payer was in India

Showing 1–20 of 355 · Page 1 of 18

...