← 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)

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Special Rang-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 543/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

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

DCIT CC -1(4), Bengaluru vs. Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 531/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

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

DCIT, CC-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 530/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

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

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 496/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

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

Debashis Das, Kolkata vs. ACIT-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.947/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Debashis Das………………………………………................................……….…Appellant Uttara Tritiya Housing Complex, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Near City Center-2, W.B– 700156. [Pan: Aixpd81639Q] Vs. Acit, International Taxaion-1(1), Kolkata ..L..….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015–16. The Ld. Cit(A) Sustained The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Salary Income Earned By The Assessee During His Short-Term Foreign Assignment In The Philippines. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 366 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 5(2)(b)Section 6(1)

relating to salary earned for services rendered outside India during his foreign assignment. The claim was made under Section 5(2)(b) read with the provisions relating to non- resident taxation. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee was employed with IBM India Pvt. Ltd., an Indian employer, and salary ... company, salary paid from India must be regarded as income accruing in India and therefore the assessee is not entitled to relief under Section 5(2)(b) of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and examined the material available on record. The core issue is the taxability

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2827/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2618/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Jamyang Khyentse Yeshi, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT, DCIT, C.R. Building, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 604/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A), After Calling For A Remand Report Under Rule 46A, Recorded The Following Findings (Para 5.1 To 5.5 Of The Appellate Order):

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prem Singh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

total income of a person is chargeable to tax in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Act. Section 5(2) further provides that in the case of a non-resident, only such income as is received or deemed to be received in India, or accrues or arises

New Mangalore Port Road Company Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Rajnish Kasturchand Ostwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward, 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

salary earned abroad, and that such income was neither received nor accrued in India, there remains no basis for invoking section 69. Under section 5(2), a non-resident is taxable in India only with respect to income that is received or deemed to be received in India or accrues ... brought any material to show that the amount invested represents income chargeable to tax in India. What is not taxable under section 5(2) cannot be brought to tax indirectly through a deeming fiction under section 69. Section 69 presupposes that the investment represents income liable to tax under

Yogesh Gandhi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Intl Tax -1(3)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2671/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Yogesh Gandhi, Vs. Acit, Circle, C – 2/14, Safdarjung Development Area, International Tax 1(3)(1), New Delhi – 110 021. New Delhi. (Pan : Aaipg4922F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rishabh Ostwal, Advocate Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi - 42 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 11.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Is An Nri & Also Having Income From Rent & Interest During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessee Had Sold A Property During Fy 2018-19 At Rs.2,97,50,000/- & Declared His Income In Its Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20. During The Fy 2018-

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Ostwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

payment of Rs.1.00 Crore. C. The Respondent is wrong in law and on facts of the case ignoring section 5(2), Explanation 2 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and applying section 199. D. The Respondent is wrong in allowing credit of TDS on proportionate basis under Rule 37BA disregarding ... sale consideration already offered and taxed in AY 2019-20, in accordance with the principles of income recognition and TDS credit under Section 5(2), Explanation 2 under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and 3. Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem

S H Kelkar and Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5591/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh BhatFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 4(2)

form and thereupon the designated authority shall pass an order stating that the declarant has paid the amount.” It can be seen that Section 5(2) of the DTVSV Act only prescribes for payment of the amount determined under Section 5(1). 14. Section 4(2) of the DTVSV

M/S Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 343 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम The DCIT H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh Circle 1(1), Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACO4024H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 988 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh The DCIT Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9

payment to the applicant in India. The commission income would, therefore, be taxable under the Act in view of the specific provisions of section 5(2)(b) read with section 9(l)(i) of the Act. The facts that Agent renders services abroad in the form of pursuing and soliciting

M/S Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 343/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal, with the permission of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9

payment to the applicant in India. The commission income would, therefore, be taxable under the Act in view of the specific provisions of section 5(2)(b) read with section 9(l)(i) of the Act. The facts that Agent renders services abroad in the form of pursuing and soliciting

Warner Bros Distributing Inc., United States of America vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 4(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3411/MUM/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra (virtually present)For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

India by the assessee through Warner Bros. India would directly accrue or arise in India, and therefore, fall within the purview of section 5(2) of the Act. The AO also held that the activities are performed within the territory of India by Warner Bros. India on behalf

Hari Krishna Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1858/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40

hands of the recipients, as the assessee company is resident Indian company and payees are foreign company as per the provisions of the section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee company has paid the fees for technical services which was covered under the section

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

salary amount of Rs.1,31,04,562/- was received in India from the Indian employer, the same is taxable in India as per section 5(2)(a) of the Act. The AO also seen that the Indian company had issued form 16 on the said amount ... salary for the year has been received from the Indian company and has been rightly taxed by the AO under the provisions of section 5(2)(a). As the TRC produced is with respect to Korea, it is not possible to claim the benefits of Article-16 of the India

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 2259/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

Madras High Court in the case of Standard Triumph Motors Ltd. (119 ITR 573) which has held that in case of non-resident, Section 5(2)(a) of the Income tax Act i.e., will have no application andtaxabilitywillbedeterminedonlyunderSection5(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, i.e., by accrual. Subsequently

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 1615/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

Madras High Court in the case of Standard Triumph Motors Ltd. (119 ITR 573) which has held that in case of non-resident, Section 5(2)(a) of the Income tax Act i.e., will have no application andtaxabilitywillbedeterminedonlyunderSection5(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, i.e., by accrual. Subsequently

Zubin Jehanbux Gandevia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1789/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5(2)

against 15% as per Article 10 of the India Singapore DTAA. It is hereby submitted that per the provisions of section 5(2) of the Act, non-resident individuals are taxable in India in respect of a. Income received or deemed to be received in India and b. Income accruing