“Section 5(2)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 5Section 5(2)(b)80 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 5(2)(b) is CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (310 ITR 320), cited in 259 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 5(2)(b)

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).

PCIT v. Wipro Ltd.

140 Taxmann.com 223 · 2022 · Supreme Court

192

citing judgments

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).

CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd.

331 ITR 192 · 2011 · High Court

152

citing judgments

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.

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

6 SCC 121 · 2009 · Reported

140

citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat

364 ITR 31 · 2014 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

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.

DCIT v. Welspun Corporation Ltd.

77 Taxmann.com 165 · 2017 · ITAT

citing judgments

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.

Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association v. CIT

82 ITR 704 · 1971 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

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).

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

302 CTR 458 · 2018 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

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)

Hcl Singapore Pte Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation 2(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 537/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

outside India, no part of the income accrues or arises or deemed to accrue or arise in India and accordingly the provisions of section 5(2)(b) of the Act are not applicable in the instant case. b) Section 9(1) of the Act specifies the incomes which would

Hcl Technologies Denmark Aps, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 2(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 528/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

Smt. Pratimaben V. Raja, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Intl. Taxn., Rajkot

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

ITA 51/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 148Section 2(30)Section 68Section 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

Shri Vinodkumar Hiralal Raja, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Intl. Taxn., Rajkot

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

ITA 50/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 148Section 2(30)Section 68Section 69

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Campus Eai India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

received in India, Non-residents who are not assessable in respect of income accruing and received abroad are rendered chargeable under Section 5(2)(b) in respect of income deemed by Section 9 to accrue in India. "(emphasis supplied) 17. After referring to Eli Lilly (supra) in GE India Technology

Hindustan Epc Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7112/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6985/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 784/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Citicorp Trustee Company बिधम/ Dcit (International Ltd. As Trustee For Fccb Taxation)-2(1)(1) Vs. Issued By Jindal Saw Ltd. 17Th Floor, 1713, Air India Citigroup Centre, Canada Building, Nariman Point, Square, Canary Wharf Mumbai-400021. London E14 5Lb United Kingdom. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc0452D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anish Thackar/Nikhil Tiwari/Lekh Mehta Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 19.01.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice The Ground No. 2 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Essential Condition Prescribed Under The Act; & Therefore Contends That The Action Of The Ao Is Ab-Initio-Void. 3. In Order To Examine The Legal Issue Raised By The Assessee, It Is Necessary To Look Into The Reasons Recorded By Ao To Reopen The Assessment Which Is Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thackar/NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 6

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd UK. The AO has taxed the interest on FCCB accrued in India as per the provisions of section 5(2)(b) of the Income Tax Ac, 1961. The amount of interest of Rs.42,84,48,114/- held to be deemed to accrue or arise in India ... taxed the interest on Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB) as accrued in India as per the provisions of section 5(2)(b) of the Act and thus held that the interest to the tune of Rs.42,84,48,114/- was deemed to accrue or arise in India

Tara Raju Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Surat

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 195/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Raju Maganlal Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Auspp 1436 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Tara Raju Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Avdpp 6714 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

from Income Tax Act. The assessee has no other source of income in India. Section 68/69 or 69A to 69C cannot prevail over Section 5(2)(b) of the Act. The assessee submitted that in absence of any income by NRI, no addition can be made. The agriculture income

Shri Raju Maganlal Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Int. Taxation, Surat

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 188/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

funds get explained and the onus on the assessee under section 69 gets discharged, and consequently such remittances cannot be taxed under section 5(2) (b). Therefore, the argument of the revenue that, in the present case, the impugned money was taxable under section 5(2)(b) read with section ... because in that case the onus on the assessee under section 69 will not stand discharged. In such a case the provisions of section 5(2)(b) read with section 69 will surely be attracted. [Para 14. 7]. In the present case, the AO while relying on the CBDT circular

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

Spe India Films Holding Llc, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Intl Tax) -4(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result ground no-2 raised by the assessee- is fully allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalspe India Films Holding Llc C/O, Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Centre, Tower No.3, 27Th Floor-32Nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaocs1827L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Narimaon Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.J. Pardiwala/Paras Savla Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Drp’] Dated 06.01.2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant, Objects To The Order Dated 19 January 2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Sh. P.j. Pardiwala/Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Keshari

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

charging provisions of the present Act. The argument on behalf of the assessee was that any income for the purpose of section 5(2)(b) relating to a non resident must be income as could be found in section 9(1)(i). Before any liability can be fixed by virtue

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

M/S Irunway India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 229/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Irunway India Private Limited, Dcit, Vs. Regus Business Center, Office Circle – 3(1)(1), No.1015, Bengaluru. 10Th Floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurugram, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 003. Pan : Aabci 5613 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S

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

Faber Castell Aktiengesellschaft, Germany vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7619/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

that FTS could be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arose and according to the law of that State. Although under section 5(2)(b) of the Act, applicable in the case of a non-resident person, income which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5163/DEL/2012[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(6)(ii)Section 115A

deemed to accrue or arise in India and are in nature of FTS under explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) r.w. section 5(2)(b) of the act. It is not the case of AO that non-resident has business connection and PE in India. On the issue

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5162/DEL/2012[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(6)(ii)Section 115A