“ Section 5(2)(b) ”

140 Taxmann.com 223 · 2022 · Supreme Court

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).

PCIT v. Wipro Ltd.

192

CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd.

Exemption provisions under Chapter III, such as Section 10B(8), must be interpreted strictly, and any claim for such exemptions must be made in the return of income. The principles governing Chapter III (incomes not forming part of total income) differ from those for Chapter VIA (deductions in computing total income).

331 ITR 192 · 2011 · High Court

152

Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has taken one of two possible views on a debatable issue during assessment proceedings.

6 SCC 121 · 2009 · Reported

140

CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat

This case establishes the principles for calculating compensation in motor accident and personal injury claims, including the selection of the multiplier based on the deceased's age, assessment of loss of dependency, consideration of future prospects, and deductions for personal expenses.

364 ITR 31 · 2014 · Supreme Court

DCIT v. Welspun Corporation Ltd.

A trust's objects, even if based on religious tenets, can qualify as charitable for tax exemptions if its benefits are not exclusively restricted to a particular religious community or caste.

77 Taxmann.com 165 · 2017 · ITAT

Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association v. CIT

Subscription fees received by a non-resident for information access do not constitute 'royalty' for the use of copyright under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case also elaborates on the scheme of taxability for non-residents under Section 5(2) of the Act, especially concerning income deemed to accrue or arise in India.

82 ITR 704 · 1971 · Supreme Court

19-23 of APB): UOI v. Hari Singh

An intention to benefit a section of the public, as distinguished from a special individual, is sufficient for a trust to be considered for charitable registration and exemptions. This applies even if the beneficiaries belong to a specific caste, community, or professional group, allowing the trust to qualify as serving a general public utility under Section 2(15).

302 CTR 458 · 2018 · Supreme Court

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Additional amounts, solatium, and interest on excess compensation under the Land Acquisition Act form part of enhanced compensation under section 45(5) and are taxable in the year of receipt. If TDS is deducted, the Assessing Officer must determine the nature of the land acquired and the taxability of the compensation or enhanced compensation.

Judgments citing Section 5(2)(b)

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5505/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5506/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2011-12 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5507/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2012-13 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5508/Mum/2025 Dcit- Circle 1(3)(1) A.Y: 2013-14 Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs Diebold India Private Limited Rolta Tower-1, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 39, Central Road, Midc, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 Pan – Aabcd633Ον (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No. 308/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025) Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Co. No. 309/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5506/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2011-12 With Co. No. 310/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5507/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2012-13 With Co. No. 311/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5508/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2013-14 Diebold India Private Limited Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar/ Shri Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee Challenging The Different Impugned Orders Dt. 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 04.06.2025 & 04.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Appeals & Cross Objections Is Common & Identical & Belongs To One Assessee Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

ITA 5507/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

chargeable under the head 'Salaries'. But on the payments, such as interest, royalty, fees for technical services. 5.5.4.3. As per the provisions of Section 5(2)(b) of the Act, the total income of a non-resident also includes all income which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

ITA 5506/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5505/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

from commission payment to non-resident have arose in India and is taxable under the Act in view of the specific provision of section 5(2)(b) r.w.s. 9(1)(i) of the IT Act, and thus, the AO has correctly made addition of Rs.25,55,75,035/- on account ... ground that no tax was deducted at source under section 195 of the Act. The AO held that in view of section 5(2)(b) read with section 9(1)(i) of the Act, the income in the hands of such agents was deemed to accrue or arise 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

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

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

India), and makes full and final payment to the applicant in India" and that "the commission income would, therefore, be taxable under section 5(2)(b) read with section 9(1)(i) of the Act". The Authority for Advance Ruling also held that "the fact that the agent renders services ... section 9(1)(i) and, in effect, outside the ambit of income 'deemed to accrue or arise in India' for the purpose of Section 5(2)(b). The point of time when commission agent's right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation

Hemant Gordhanbhai Patel, Nadiad vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn., Vadodara

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

ITA 1684/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69

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

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-1(2), Benglauru, Bengaluru vs. Unitedlex India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As I-Runway India Private Limited), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1243/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

ITA No.1243/Bang/2024 Unitedlex India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)

ITA 236/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

payments have been made in the subsequent financial years 2011-12 to 2013-14.The assessing officer however, observed that in view of provisions of section 5(2)(b) r.w.s 9(1) of the Act, the expenditure involves the income accruing or arising to the recipient parties in India and such income

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)

ITA 235/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)

ITA 234/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)

ITA 233/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)