← All Phrases

“Section 9(1)(5)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 9Section 9(1)(5)(c)2 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 9(1)(5)(c) is CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (345 ITR 494), cited in 461 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 9(1)(5)(c)

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT
57 ITR 532 · 1965 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

Not all receipts constitute income chargeable to tax. An Assessing Officer cannot reject a prima facie reasonable explanation on mere probabilities or arbitrary grounds, but must disprove facts.

J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar
94 ITR 616 · 1974 · High Court
58
citing judgments

An assessee found to be the owner of bullion, etc., must explain its source. The Income Tax Officer must find the assessee to be the owner, not merely in possession.

01. Sunsathi Dayal v. CIT (SC)
213 ITR 805 · 1995 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Sums credited in the books of an assessee can be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act if the explanation offered regarding their nature and source is not satisfactory.

Judgments citing Section 9(1)(5)(c)

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It), Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4449/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satyapal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “I”, MUMBAI Before Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Accountant Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Internationa Taxation)-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3416/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 270A

ITA No.3416/Mum/20: igs 123 M/s BNP Paribas Vs. ACIT (I) Cirle 1(3)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL