“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)

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse Ag, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 14/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

received by assessee‟s Dubai Branch (CSDB) from the Indian Company. The charge of the Assessing Officer is that having regard to Section 5(2)(b) read with section 9(1)(i) of the Act, the said income is includible in the scope of total income chargeable

Warner Bros. Distributing Inc., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/MUM/2022[ 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blewarner Bros. Distributing Inc. V. Acit (It)-4(3)(2) C/O. Warnere Bros. Pictures India Private Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Floor 407, 4Th Floor, Windfall, Air India Building Sahar Plaza Complex Nariman Point Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aaacw6559R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.F. Jahangir Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.F. JahangirFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S

Mr.Rahil Mahesh Kumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 892/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R

Section 48Section 54FSection 55A

ITA No.892/Bang/2019 Mr. Rahil Mahesh Kumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

Carol Info Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1121/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Hiren MunraFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 5(1)Section 5(2)Section 6

issued under Section 5(1) of the DTVSV Act [Acknowledgement No. 266587650170221], (c) order of full and final settlement of tax arrears under Section 5(2) read with Section 6 of the DTVSV Act in Form 5 [Acknowledgement No. 904079621261121]. In view of the aforesaid, the Ld. Authorised Representative

Ca (India) Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 14(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2046/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Us Submitted That The Appellant Has Opted For Settlement Under The Provisions Of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Dtvsv Act’). In This Regard, The Ld. Authorised Representative For The Appellant Placed On Record Order Of Full & Final Settlement Of Tax Arrears Under Section 5(2) Read With Section 6 Of The Dtvsv Act In Form 5 [Acknowledgement No. 347467521140322]. In View Of The Aforesaid, The Ld. Authorised Representative For The Appellant Requested For The Withdrawal Of The Present Appeal. The Learned Departmental Representative Did Not Have Any Objections To The Aforesaid Request.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh MalpaniFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5(2)Section 6

this regard, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant placed on record order of full and final settlement of tax arrears under Section 5(2) read with Section 6 of the DTVSV Act in Form 5 [Acknowledgement No. 347467521140322]. In view of the aforesaid, the Ld. Authorised Representative

DCIT (It) -3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marriott Internation Servicesal Design & Construction, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 2289/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143Section 195Section 9

income with the foreign company had received in India or an income which had accrued to the foreign company within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Act and that the sum paid to the foreign company at London for technical advice given from London could not be attributed

DCIT (It) -3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marriott International Design & Construction Services, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 2288/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143Section 195Section 9

DCIT (It) -3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marriott International Design & Construction Services, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 2286/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143Section 195Section 9

Bp India Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT ) 8(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2215/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Samruddhi D Hande

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(1)Section 5(2)Section 6

under Section 5(1) of the DTVSV Act [Acknowledgement No. 999143970040121] and (c) order of full and final settlement of tax arrears under Section 5(2) read with Section 6 of the DTVSV Act in Form 5 [Acknowledgement No. 847851751181121] which clearly provides that, inter alia the Appellant has been

Kodak India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 14 (2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as 3

ITA 7842/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri RaunakFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 5(1)Section 5(2)Section 6

issued under Section 5(1) of the DTVSV Act [Acknowledgement No. 222807360210121] and order of full and final settlement of tax arrears under Section 5(2) read with Section 6 of the DTVSV Act [Acknowledgement No. 269275050200221]. The learned Departmental Representative does not have any objections to the aforesaid request

Chiron Behring Vaccines P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2705/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Harsh SangoiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(1)Section 5(2)Section 6

under Section 5(1) of the DTVSV Act [Acknowledgement No. 233461100300121] and (c) order of full and final settlement of tax arrears under Section 5(2) read with Section 6 of the DTVSV Act [Acknowledgement No. 967685481240122] which clearly provides that, inter alia the Appellant has been granted immunity from

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit (It) – 3(3)(2) Vs. Shri Venu Raman 16Th Floor, Room No. Kumar, 1634, Air India Bldg, Flat No. 2, Hermes Nariman Point, House-Iii, Mumbai – 400020. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapk9122E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Achal Sharma. Cit. Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.Achal Sharma. CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Vijay Mehta.AR

Section 114Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting penalty of Rs. 4,39,16,910/- without appreciating the fact that as Section 5(2) of the Act provides for taxation of "all income from Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai whatever source derived' which accrues or arises or is deemed

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2015–16

ITA 7262/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 250

outset, it is pertinent to note certain provisions of the Act, which are relevant in order to decide the issue at hand. Section 5(2) of the Act provides that the total income of a person who is non-resident includes all income from whatever source derived, which is received

DCIT(It)- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2015–16

ITA 6098/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 250

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 987/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri

Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

deducted at source by the assessee. However, the CIT(Appeals) held that income arising due to payments for the services mentioned in section 5(2) of the Act would come under the ambit of “fees for technical services” as described in section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore

Hiren V. Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT-25(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2228/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal - CIT

Section 250Section 5(1)Section 5(2)

also issued on 28.11.2020 determining the amount payable by the assessee. The same was duly complied by the assessee and Form 4 under section 5(2) of the VSV Act was issued on 10.02.2021 acknowledging the receipt of payment. The assessee has also filed copy of Form 5 dated ... issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 5(2) of the VSV Act towards full and final settlement of tax arrears for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee submitted that, despite the above, learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order dated 06.10.2021. 3. When

Hermes Maritime Services P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4208/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Hermes Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. 1001/1002, Great Eastern Summit-B, Plot No. 66, Sector-15, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614 Pan: Aabch4865Q ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-15(2) (1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rajen Damani Respondent By : Sh. Milind S. Chavan Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajen DamaniFor Respondent: Sh. Milind S. Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40

Chargeable” which entails all payments which are chargeable under the Act. 7 c. For the chargeability of income of a non - resident, section 5(2) of the Act specifically says that the income of the non-resident includes all income from whatever source derived which- (i) Is received

DCIT, 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ganpat Singhvi, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 707/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

prove that the deposits made in the HSBC, Geneva as contained in the base note is not hit by the provisions of Section 5(2) and Section 9 of the Act. (e) The assessee chose not to disclose with material evidence the sources of deposits in the HSBC, Geneva ... chosen not to disclose details of his HSBC bank accounts and the sources of deposit despite various opportunities given. The provision of Section 5(2) of the Act is reproduced as under: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous year of a person

Dipika Tanna, Mumbai vs. ITO - 33 (1)94), Mumbai

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

ITA 3241/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Tejas ShahFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 5(1)Section 5(2)

Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") and also copy of Form-4 being intimation of payment under section 5(2) of the Act, which are taken on record. 3. Learned Departmental Representative does not oppose the prayer so made by the assessee. 4. In view

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate

Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

payments were received outside India by the person who provided services. Assessee submitted that it being a non-resident, in terms of section 5(2)(b) & (c) of the Act, it is only income that is chargeable to tax in India that which accrue or arise in India