← All Phrases

“Section 5(1)(c)”

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

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

Leading authorities on Section 5(1)(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.

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others
118 ITR 507 · 1979 · Supreme Court
268
citing judgments

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

Vedabhai v. Santaram
253 ITR 798 · 2002 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT
381 ITR 117 · 2016 · High Court
220
citing judgments

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

CIT v. Tip Top Typography
368 ITR 330 · 2014 · High Court
161
citing judgments

For computing income from house property, the Annual Letting Value (ALV) cannot be arbitrarily estimated by the Assessing Officer, but must be determined based on the Municipal ratable value of the property.

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.

People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO
100 ITD 87 · 2006 · ITAT
121
citing judgments

When substantial justice and procedural technicalities are in conflict, especially in cases involving non-deliberate delay, the cause of substantial justice must be prioritized. The opposing party cannot claim a vested right to benefit from injustice due to such delays.

Judgments citing Section 5(1)(c)

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: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 5

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई

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

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