← All Phrases

“Section 5(2)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 5(2) is 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises (298 ITR 141), cited in 706 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 5(2)

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

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.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

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.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
631
citing judgments

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)
315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
363
citing judgments

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.

Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT
5 SCC 482 · 1997 · Supreme Court
261
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

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
181 ITR 400 · 1990 · Supreme Court
258
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Govindbhai Mamaiya
91 Taxmann.com 20 · 2018 · Supreme Court
205
citing judgments

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)

Hcl Poland Sp Zoo, Poland vs. ACIT Circle -2(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 560/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

India In the instant case, there is no dispute that the amounts were received outside India by the assessee. Hence the provisions of section 5(2)(a) of the Act are not applicable. Since there is no dispute that the services were rendered outside India to the customers outside India ... part of the income accrues or arises or deemed to accrue or arise in India and accordingly the provisions of section 5(2)(b) of the Act are not applicable in the instant case. b) Section 9(1) of the Act specifies the incomes which would be deemed

Hcl Technologies Germany Gmbh, Germany vs. ACIT Circle -2(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 559/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

India In the instant case, there is no dispute that the amounts were received outside India by the assessee. Hence the provisions of section 5(2)(a) of the Act are not applicable. Since there is no dispute that the services were rendered outside India to the customers outside India ... part of the income accrues or arises or deemed to accrue or arise in India and accordingly the provisions of section 5(2)(b) of the Act are not applicable in the instant case. b) Section 9(1) of the Act specifies the incomes which would be deemed

Hcl Technologies France, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-Int. Tax 2(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 544/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

India In the instant case, there is no dispute that the amounts were received outside India by the assessee. Hence the provisions of section 5(2)(a) of the Act are not applicable. Since there is no dispute that the services were rendered outside India to the customers outside India ... part of the income accrues or arises or deemed to accrue or arise in India and accordingly the provisions of section 5(2)(b) of the Act are not applicable in the instant case. b) Section 9(1) of the Act specifies the incomes which would be deemed

Hcl Technologies Philippines Inc., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-Int. Tax 2(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 543/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

India In the instant case, there is no dispute that the amounts were received outside India by the assessee. Hence the provisions of section 5(2)(a) of the Act are not applicable. Since there is no dispute that the services were rendered outside India to the customers outside India ... part of the income accrues or arises or deemed to accrue or arise in India and accordingly the provisions of section 5(2)(b) of the Act are not applicable in the instant case. b) Section 9(1) of the Act specifies the incomes which would be deemed

Hcl Singapore Pte Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation 2(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 537/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

India In the instant case, there is no dispute that the amounts were received outside India by the assessee. Hence the provisions of section 5(2)(a) of the Act are not applicable. Since there is no dispute that the services were rendered outside India to the customers outside India ... part of the income accrues or arises or deemed to accrue or arise in India and accordingly the provisions of section 5(2)(b) of the Act are not applicable in the instant case. b) Section 9(1) of the Act specifies the incomes which would be deemed

Hcl Technologies Denmark Aps, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 2(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 528/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

India In the instant case, there is no dispute that the amounts were received outside India by the assessee. Hence the provisions of section 5(2)(a) of the Act are not applicable. Since there is no dispute that the services were rendered outside India to the customers outside India ... part of the income accrues or arises or deemed to accrue or arise in India and accordingly the provisions of section 5(2)(b) of the Act are not applicable in the instant case. b) Section 9(1) of the Act specifies the incomes which would be deemed

Smt. Pratimaben V. Raja, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Intl. Taxn., Rajkot

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 51/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 148Section 2(30)Section 68Section 69

seafarer transferring such money to NREaccount maintained by him in India. The latter remittance would be outside the purview of provisions of section 5(2)(a), as what is remitted is not 'salary income' but a mere transfer of assessee's fund from one bank account to another which does ... ITAT held that in case of remittances by way of banking channel onus on assessee under Section 69 stands discharged, and, therefore, section 5(2)(b) does not apply. 15. In view of the instant facts and the judicial precedents cited, above we are of the considered view that

Shri Vinodkumar Hiralal Raja, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Intl. Taxn., Rajkot

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 50/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 148Section 2(30)Section 68Section 69

seafarer transferring such money to NREaccount maintained by him in India. The latter remittance would be outside the purview of provisions of section 5(2)(a), as what is remitted is not 'salary income' but a mere transfer of assessee's fund from one bank account to another which does ... ITAT held that in case of remittances by way of banking channel onus on assessee under Section 69 stands discharged, and, therefore, section 5(2)(b) does not apply. 15. In view of the instant facts and the judicial precedents cited, above we are of the considered view that

Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-59(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 3575/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)

arrears for the Assessment Year under consideration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. A certificate to this effect under Section 5(2) of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 has also been filed. 3. Learned Senior DR has no objection. 4. In view of the above

Bokam Sanyasi Naidu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward(International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.36/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17) Bokam Sanyasi Naidu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward (International Taxation) Pan: Aiwpb 3717 D Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 5(2)(a)Section 50CSection 54E

account in India. Therefore, the Ld. DRP concluded that the Ld. AO is absolutely correct in invoking the provisions of section 5(2)(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the directions of the Ld. DRP, the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal ... salary has become due as per the provisions of section 15A of the Act deserves consideration. The provisions of section 5(2)(a) of the Act cannot be applied in the instant case as the salary become due to an employee in the previous year where 6 the services

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2334/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AdvaniFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

learned CIT(A). has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that as per provisions of Section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act in the case of a Non-Resident income which is received or is deemed to be received outside India ... assessible under Income Tax Act 1961, correct computation is necessary. The assessing officer can assess only such sums that fit into definition of sections 5(2) rw 8 r.w 9 rw 69, 69A, 69B, as applicable in the case, emanating from the base note. Any other computation will be incorrect

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Campus Eai India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

received in India, Non-residents who are not assessable in respect of income accruing and received abroad are rendered chargeable under Section 5(2)(b) in respect of income deemed by Section 9 to accrue in India. "(emphasis supplied) 17. After referring to Eli Lilly (supra) in GE India Technology

Hindustan Epc Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7112/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

amount of Rs 2,80,85,949/- in the assessment. 6.2. The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that in terms of section 5(2) read with section 9(1) of the Act, commission to a foreign agent paid outside India for services rendered abroad was not chargeable ... case laws relied upon dealt with export commission. In this regard, we hold that this is completely irrelevant consideration as the provisions of section 5(2) read with section 9(1) of the Act read with Explanation 2 thereon, does not make any distinction between import commission and export commission

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6985/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

amount of Rs 2,80,85,949/- in the assessment. 6.2. The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that in terms of section 5(2) read with section 9(1) of the Act, commission to a foreign agent paid outside India for services rendered abroad was not chargeable ... case laws relied upon dealt with export commission. In this regard, we hold that this is completely irrelevant consideration as the provisions of section 5(2) read with section 9(1) of the Act read with Explanation 2 thereon, does not make any distinction between import commission and export commission

M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai vs. The DDIT (It) 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3280/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelinklaters V. Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) V. Linklaters Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 44C

learned Commissioner, permanence test visualized in article 5(1) does not come into play at all. We are thus urged to hold that section 5(2)(k) is to be decided on standalone basis, and that as long as conditions set out in article 5(2)(k) are satisfied

DDIT (It)-4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3039/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelinklaters V. Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) V. Linklaters Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 44C

learned Commissioner, permanence test visualized in article 5(1) does not come into play at all. We are thus urged to hold that section 5(2)(k) is to be decided on standalone basis, and that as long as conditions set out in article 5(2)(k) are satisfied

DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi vs. Anand Persad Jaiswal, New Dehi

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2742/DEL/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2003-04 The Dcit, Central Circle-04, New Delhi Anand Persad Jaiswal, 54, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, New Delhi 110024 Vs. Pan Adrpj 2549 M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr For Assessee: Shri Deepchand Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-23, New Delhi Dated 25.08.2022 For Ay 2003-04. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Quashing The Assessment Order Relying On The Decision Of Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Brahm. Dutt (100 Taxmann.Com 324) Without Appreciating That The Amendment To Sec 149(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Finance Act, 2021 Was Retrospective In Nature In View Of Explanation To Sec 149 As Held By Itat (D Bench Mumbai) In The Case Of Dilip J. Thakkar (135 Taxmann.Com 208) After Considering The Decision Of Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In Brahm Dutt (Supra).

For Appellant: Shri Deepchand Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

Senior DR supported the action of the Assessing Officer and the ld. AR supported the first appellate order. 8. As per provision of section 5(2) of the Act which is charging section for non- resident, Indian income of non-resident is taxable under the provisions of Income

Anand Infracon, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed regarding our observations above

ITA 100/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.100/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anand Infracon 502, Dhebar Arcade, Near Kundan Palace, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aatfm4011A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 4(7)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 784/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Citicorp Trustee Company बिधम/ Dcit (International Ltd. As Trustee For Fccb Taxation)-2(1)(1) Vs. Issued By Jindal Saw Ltd. 17Th Floor, 1713, Air India Citigroup Centre, Canada Building, Nariman Point, Square, Canary Wharf Mumbai-400021. London E14 5Lb United Kingdom. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc0452D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anish Thackar/Nikhil Tiwari/Lekh Mehta Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 19.01.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice The Ground No. 2 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Essential Condition Prescribed Under The Act; & Therefore Contends That The Action Of The Ao Is Ab-Initio-Void. 3. In Order To Examine The Legal Issue Raised By The Assessee, It Is Necessary To Look Into The Reasons Recorded By Ao To Reopen The Assessment Which Is Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thackar/NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 6

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd UK. The AO has taxed the interest on FCCB accrued in India as per the provisions of section 5(2)(b) of the Income Tax Ac, 1961. The amount of interest of Rs.42,84,48,114/- held to be deemed to accrue or arise in India ... taxed the interest on Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB) as accrued in India as per the provisions of section 5(2)(b) of the Act and thus held that the interest to the tune of Rs.42,84,48,114/- was deemed to accrue or arise in India

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internationl Taxation)Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 919/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 27

treating them as distinct entities, in the case of Dresdner Bank AG (supra),was in the context of Section 5(2). The separate profit centre accounting approach for the HO does not hold good in the treaty context, because, even if it is an income