“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)

Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Private Limited, Gujarat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Gandhihdam, Gandhidham, Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 225/RJT/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

commission payable to foreign agents could be deemed to have accrued or arose in India and, accordingly would be taxable under provisions of section 5(2)(b) read with section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices

Nirmal Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Edila Business World Private Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, New Delhi

Appeal is hereby disposed of, for statistical purposes, and the

ITA 1497/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu Xkks

Same Deutz Fahr Italia Spa, Italy vs. Assistant Commissioner, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/CHNY/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250o

such tractors, during the warranty period, if required warranty service is provided by dealers outside India to customers outside India. As per Section 5(2) of the Act, the income of a non-resident is taxable in India if the income is received or deemed to be received ... such tractors, during the warranty period, if required warranty service is provided by dealers outside India to customers outside India. As per Section 5(2) of the Act, the income of a non-resident is taxable in India if the income is received or deemed to be received or accrues

Anil Dhansukhlal, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer (Int. Taxation) Gandhidham, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/RJT/2024[A Y 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.68/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2018-19) Anil Dhansukhlal Income Tax Officer बनाम Vakhat Niwas 10, Divan Para (Int.Txn), Gandhidham, Vs. Rajkot -360 001 Amruta Estate Building, Jheelwas, Sadar, Rajkot- 360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ajypd6405F "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 139Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

shifted under section 68 or 69 only with reference to the income which is otherwise taxable in the hands ofnon-resident under section 5(2). Therefore, the issue whether the income of a non-resident is taxable or not is still to bedecided with reference to the provisions of section ... 5(2) and the provisions of section 68 or 69 cannot enlarge the scope of section 5(2). What is not taxable under section 5(2) cannot be taxed under the provisions of section 68 or 69. Undersection 5(2), the income accruing or arising outside India is not taxable

Mridula Jha Jena, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward, 3(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4844/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra/Ms. SnigdhaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 270ASection 5(2)Section 9(1)(ii)

concluding that the salary received by Appellant from her international assignment shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India under section 5(2) of the Act. 2.2. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the CIT erred in upholding AOs stand in making an addition ... stating that the assessee continued receive salary in India and accordingly the same is taxable as per the provisions of section 5(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) however directed the AO to give corresponding credit towards TDS as per Form 16. The relevant findings

Pritpal Singh Basan, Jharkhand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeal), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 957/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 6(6)

seafarer into the NRE bank account maintained in India by the seafarer. 2. The matter has been examined in the Board. Section 5(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act provides that only such income of a non-resident shall be subjected to tax in India that is either received ... view of the CBDT Circular, the assessee is entitled to the claim of relief from the applicability of the provisions of section 5(2)(a) of the Act, which is also allowable to the income accrued outside India in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court

Pritpal Singh Basan, Jamshedpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1003/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 6(6)

Kiri Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1513/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

account of commission paid to overseas agents was deemed to accrue or arise in India and was accordingly taxable under the provision of section 5(2)(b) r.w.s. 9(1)(i) of the Act but the assessee has failed to make the compliances with the provisions of section 195(2

Tungsten Network Limited, United Kingdom vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre, Minto Road

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2238/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita Nos. 2237 & 2238/Del/2024 (Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Tungsten Network Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit Anil Saraf, No.8-2-350/3/C, Civic Centre, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Minto Road, Hyderabad, Telangana-34 New Delhi – 110 002 Pan : Aajct 5973 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Saraf, C.A. & Shri Anish Raj Saraf, C.A. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 O R D E R Per Bench :

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 9(1)(vii)

liable for tax if the source is in -6- ITA Nos.2237 & 2238/Del/2024 Tungston Network Ltd. Vs. DCIT A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 India. Section 5(2) read with section 9 of the Act deals with source rules for non-resident under the provisions of Income ... company has arisen in India as the payer i.e. Genpact India is also situated in India. Therefore, under the primary source rule under section 5(2), the income received by the assessee company accrues or arises in India. As a result, further reference to deeming provisions under section

Tungsten Network Limited, United Kingdom vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre, Minto Road

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2237/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 9(1)(vii)

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1) [Formerly JCIT, Range-12, Kolkata ]

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

ITA 1865/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 11(1) M/S La Opala Rg Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 8Th Floor, Premises No.803 & 804 Eco Centre, Em-4, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700091, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl5569J Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan & Deepak Mundhra, Tanmoy Kar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR

Section 133(6)Section 37

During the appellate proceedings, the appellant contested that the AO has wrongly invoked the provisions of section 5(2) and Section 9(1)(i) of the Act. It further contested that agent to whom commission was paid, is not having any business connection in India, or through or from ... transfer of a capital asset situate in India. Since the Income of foreign agents is not taxable in India by virtue of Section 5(2) read with Section 9(1) of the Act, the assessee was under no obligation to deduct TDS u/s 195 of the Act. 6.16 The contention

Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd, Singapure vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle2(1)(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2373/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 2, Venture Drive, International Taxation #24-01 Vision Exchange, Circle 2(1)(2), Singapore , 999999 New Delhi. Pan : Aahck3082A

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms C. Chandra Kanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 197Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

upon the residential status of the persons. Section 5(1) 11 provides the scope of ‘total income’ in the case of residents, whereas Section 5(2) provides the scope of ‘total income’ in the case of non- residents. As per Section 5(2) of the Act, subject to the provisions

Zydus Hospira Oncology Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 949/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. D.R

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 263

dispute for the relevant A.Y. 2016-17. Additionally, the assessee was granted an Order for Full and Final Settlement of Tax Arrears under Section 5(2) and Section 6 of the VSV Act, which calculated that the 'Amount of Tax Arrear' for A.Y. 2016-17 was zero. The assessee placed

Zydus Hospira Oncology Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 948/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. D.R

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 263

Manab Chandra Ghosh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 1(2), It, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.40/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manab Chandra Ghosh………………..……………………………….…..……Appellant 5A, Banerjee Para, Behala, Kol-700060. [Pan: Ahspg9975H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1(2), It-Kolkata..........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.11.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Employee Of Ibm India Pvt. Ltd. (An Indian Company With Registered Office In Bangalore) & Was Undergone A Short-Term Assignment To Indonesia During The Relevant Assessment Year. During The Financial Year 2015-16, The Stayed 61 Days In India As Evident By The Passport Details Submitted Before The Assessing Officer. Consequently, The Assessee Claimed To Be A Non-Resident For The Assessment Year 2016-17 As Per The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act. During The Assessment Year In Question, The Assessee Received Salary Amounting To Rs.29,57,760/- In India, On Which Rs.7,06,207/- Was Deducted As Tax At Source As Per Form No.16 Filed By The Assessee. During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Also

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 5(2)Section 5(2)(b)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Dae Won Kang Up Co Ltd, Tiruvallur vs. DCIT International Taxation - 1(1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1446/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1446/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dae Won Kang Up Co Limited Dcit C/O. Daewon India Autoparts Private Ltd. International Taxation-1(1) बनाम/ Survey No.477 & 489, No.99, Chennai. Vs. Papparambakkam Village, Tiruvalluvar Tk.- 602 025. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcd-7280-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. M.S. Vasan (Advocate) & Dr. Divya Abhishek (Ca) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024

For Appellant: Dr. M.S. Vasan (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार

DB Engineering & Consulting Gmbh, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1377/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & It(It)A No.1377/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Db Engineering & Consulting Gmbh, Dcit (International 82/4, 3Rd Floor, North Wing, Hulkul Brigade Taxation), Centre, Lavelle Road, Ward No.76, Vs. Circle – 1(1), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan :Aaecd 9085 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Susan Mathew, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024

For Appellant: Smt. Susan Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

calculating the surcharge @ 5% on the total income. In the case of non- resident person, the total income has been defined in section 5(2) of the Act which is as under: “(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous year of a person ... taken into consideration the total income which includes all incomes from whatever sources derived while calculating the surcharge. On conjoined reading of section 5(2) of the I T Act and paragraph ‘E’ II and Surcharge on income tax of the FIRST SCHEDULE ( see section 2) PART I , the surcharge

Income Tax Officer ( International Taxation ) Ward Coimbatore, Coimbatore vs. Vijayakumar Murthy, Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1588/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1588/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Vijayakumar Murthy, International Taxation, 110/3, Mudaliyaar Thottam, Ward, Vinayagar Koil Street-1, Coimbatore 641 018. Modapalayam Railway Colony, Tamil Nadu 638 002. [Pan: Aexpv 8817R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Preeti Goel (Virtual) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Ashwin D. Gowda, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D. Gowda, IRS, Addl.CIT

Section 10(14)(i)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 5Section 6(1)Section 69ASection 90

that any salary due from an employer would be chargeable to tax under the head salaries. Further, in terms of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act, salary received by non-resident in India would be taxable in India. Therefore, the assessee’s submissions were rejected

Saket Kanoi, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3243/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

during the relevant assessment year. For the relevant assessment year the assessee sold equity linked mutual funds and derived STCG. As per section 5(2) r.w.s. 9(1)(i) of the I.T.Act, transfer of a capital asset situated in India shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India