“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)

Metso Oyj, Finland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the order of the Ld

ITA 616/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 56Section 9

your Honors will appreciate that the criteria for bringing an income of a non-resident to charge in India is laid out in section 5(2) of the Act. The following incomes derived by them are liable to tax in India:- • Income received/deemed to be received in India ... arisen in India. Therefore, the guarantee fee earned by the Appellant does not fall within the scope of total income, as outlined in section 5(2) of the Act, and the same is not chargeable to tax as per the provisions of the Act. 31. Applying the ratio

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-3(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 29/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195

business connection in India. In such cases, the commission income of the foreign agent is earned and arises outside India. Under section 5(2) and Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, such income is not deemed to accrue or arise in India. Accordingly, it is not taxable in India ... they are being construed as services the same being rendered outside India the same are not taxable in India a per section 5(2) of the Act (c) That, without prejudice to the above since the agents does not have any business connection in India the same are not taxable

Pavani Dutt, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: CA, Satish Kumar SolankiFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 10(4)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69

source for purchase of property, out of remittances from outside India i.e., UAE. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to the provisions of section 5(2) and 10(4) of the Act submitted that, income of a non- resident is taxable in India, if such income is received or deemed ... evident from licence copy issued by RAK Free Trade Zone Authority, Government of Ras Al Khaimah. Further, as per the provisions of section 5(2) and 10(4) of the Act, income of a non-resident is taxable in India only if such income is received or deemed

Pavani Dutt, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: CA, Satish Kumar SolankiFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 10(4)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69

Kailashchandra Haumanprasad Sugla, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Solapur

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

ITA 1555/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1555/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kailashchandra Haumanprasad V The Income Tax Officer, Sugla, S Ward-1(1), Solapur. 45/15, Samrat Chowk, Budhwar Peth, Prabhakar Nagar H/S, Solapur-413001. Maharashtra. Pan: Ahsps3244B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-3, Chennai Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16Dated 12.10.2023, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272A(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

Viswas Scheme (VSVS), 2020 and has since been issued order in Form No.5 for full and final settlement of tax arrears under section 5(2) read with section 6 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020 (3 of 2020) by PCIT vide Acknowledgement No.810755111111121 dated 11.11.2021 certifying therein