“Section 5(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 5Section 5(1)(c)6 judgments

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1112/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

For Respondent: \nSh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

ntreating the Humble Appellant as an Resident Instead of Non\n27\nITA No. 1112/JP/2024\nSaket Agarwal vs. ITO\nResident.\nThat as per section 5(1)(c) it is clear that for the income earned by\nthe applicant on account of employment in Hong Kong to be taxable\nin India

MOHAN BALLABH SHARMA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR KANHAIYA LAL SHARMA) HEIR,BAHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to costs

ITA 650/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia,CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 5(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

Trust was situated in USA and the benefit being received in India, the same comes into the scope of total income as per section 5(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. It was held by the AO that the agreement made between India and USA for avoidance of double taxation

MAHESH RAM VITTAL,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1078/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 5(1)(c)Section 90(3)

state in which that property is situated and it does not preclude the taxation of the same in resident state. He referred to section 5(1)(c) of the Income tax Act according to which global income of a resident is taxable in India. Accordingly AO made addition of rental ... with relevant credit for tax paid in the contracting state where the property is situated. The ld. AO referring to the provision of section 5(1)(c) of the Income tax Act stated that the assessee’s case falls within that provision. Based on that provision

MR.M J ARAVIND ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 222/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 48Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MR.SAKAKIBARA YUTAKA

ITA - 111 / 2006HC Delhi03 Aug 2012

Section 10Section 10(14)Section 17(2)Section 5(1)(c)Section 6(6)Section 90(2)

inclusion of amount paid as daily allowance and also the rented accommodation. The reasoning adopted by the ITAT was that in terms of Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 6(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the assessee was a person “not ordinarily resident” in India and that ... beneficial to the assessee to whom the relevant DTAA applies. Since in the present case, the provisions of Section 6(6) read with Section (5)(1)(c) and Section 9(1)(i) of the Act were beneficial to the assessee as explained by the learned counsel for the assessee