“Section 5(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 5Section 5(1)2,233 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 5(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 5(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court

3,926

citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court

1,842

citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.

312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court

968

citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises

298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court

706

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT

384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court

631

citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

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.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT

288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court

394

citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court

363

citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

Judgments citing Section 5(1)

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House 6A, Shanti Nagar, Santacruz (East) Mumbai 400 055 Pan – Aaaca3622K Appellant Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai V/S

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5934/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5363/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us.

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14A

ASIAN PAINTS LTD. ITA NO.5363/MUM./2017 ITA NO.5934/MUM./2017 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55

Apeejay Surrendre Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 988/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

provisions of section 2(22)(e) under the second limb are attracted on KSWPL. Al- so,taking into consideration the provisions contained in section 5(1)(b), the income accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise in the hands of KSWPL and not in the hands

Apeejay Surrendra Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 987/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Rajat Dhara, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1914/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1914/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajat Dhara............................................................…………………….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Abqpd1200L] Vs. Dcit (I.T), Circle-2(1), Kolkata...…….…..….........…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Earlier Decided By The Order Of The Tribunal Dated March 02, 2022, However, The Revenue Moved An M.A No.35/Kol/2022 Stating Therein That A Mistake Apparent On Record Has Occurred In The Order Of The Tribunal Dated 02.03.2022. Therefore, Vide Order Dated 15.12.2023 Passed In M.A No.35/Kol/2022, The Final Order Dated 02.03.2022 Passed In Ita No.1914/Kol/2019 Was Recalled. The Appeal Has Been Heard Afresh. 3. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 5Section 5(1)Section 90

Officer relied upon clause C of section 5 and held that the global income of any individual resident is taxable in accordance with section 5(1) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the salary received by the assessee from his foreign employer was chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Tamil Nadu (Chennai)

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

ITA 968/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 147Section 37Section 40

such an extent that the tax and the surcharge together shall not exceed four per centum of the sale or purchase price.” Section 5(1)(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 reads as under : 5. Levy of tax on sale or purchase of goods: (1) Every dealer ... clear that the surcharge which is sought to be levied is nothing but the enhancement of sales tax, which is levied under Section 5(1) of the KGST Act. When the basic sales tax paid by KSBC under Section 5(1)(b) of the KGST Act, deduction was allowed, there

Parameswaran Bashkar, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.845/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Parameswaran Bashkar, The Income Tax Officer, House Number 784, Voc Layout, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Vgp Layout, Uthandi, Chennai. Chennai – 600 119. [Pan: Adapb-4101-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ,-थ* की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 4(6)Section 4(7)Section 54F

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद

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

Smt Sunitha Prem Victor, Trivandrum vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Trivandrum

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

ITA 1009/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassunita Prem Victor The Income Tax Officer Tc 25/2813 Mathrubhumi Road Ward – 2(3) Vs. Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum 695035 Trivandrum [Pan:Akopv8566C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.10.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)],Partly Allowing Her Appeal Contesting Her Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Returned Her Income For The Relevant Year On 18.12.2014 At Rs.5,67,250, Claiming Deduction Under Section 54 Of The Act At Rs.91,05,096 In Respect Of Construction Of A Residential House During The Relevant Year Against The Capital Gain Arising To Her On Sale Of 3 Pieces Of Land Sold During March, 2013 To November, 2013. The Claim Was, Admitting Her Mistake Inasmuch As The Capital Asset/S Sold Was Not A Residential House, Requested By The Assessee Vide Letter Dated 29.11.2016 For Being Considered U/S. 54F Of The Act; She Not Owning Any Other Residential House On The Date Of Transfer/S. Earlier, On 25.11.2016, A Revised Statement Of Income Was Filed Claiming Exemption With Reference To The Total

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

gain under the Act (i.e., u/s. 2(24)(vi) r/w s. 45) is chargeable on accrual and not on its receipt. As such section 5(1)(a) of the Act, which is even otherwise subject to the provisions of the Act, shall not operate to bring the said income

ITO, Ward-1, Churu vs. Shri Mahesh Goyanka, Churu

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 357/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Us. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Vide Email Letter Dated Nil Has Requested For Withdrawal Of The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Stated That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Dispute Relating To The Tax Arrears For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Under The Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. A Certificate To This Effect Under Section 5(1) Of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 Has Also Been Filed.

Section 5(1)

arrears for the assessment year under consideration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. A certificate to this effect under Section 5(1) of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 has also been filed. 3. Learned JCIT- DR has no objection. 4. In view of the above

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

income of a non-resident agent from provision of marketing and sales support services rendered for overseas client cannot be included under section 5(1) of the Act as the same does not deem to accrue or arise in India based on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High

Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

further submitted that as per section 5(3) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, every order passed under sub section 5(1), determining the amount payable under this Act shall be conclusive as to the matter stated therein and no matter covered by such order reopened

Parveen Kumar Aastha, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 7561/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Parveen Kumar Aastha, Vs Acit, C-112, 1St Floor, Preet Vihar, Circle-19, Delhi-110092. New Delhi. Pan-Aaipk1185A Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Prakashnath Barnwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2022

Section 5(1)

arrears for the assessment year under consideration under the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020”. A certificate to this effect under Section 5(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 has also been filed. Form No.5 issued by the Department is also enclosed with the application seeking withdrawal

M/S. Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1390/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 144C(13)

Delhi HC). Thus, he submitted, neither the project office, nor BTIL constitute a fixed place of assessee in India in terms of section 5(1) of the treaty. 10. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned DRP. Drawing our attention

DCIT Central Circle-3, Thane vs. Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane

ITA 2218/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R

Section 132Section 69C

search and survey be treated differently from the income earned from business in the ordinary course. 119. As per the provisions of section 5(1)(b) of the Act, when income accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to an assessee during the previous year

DCIT Central Circle-3, Thane vs. Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane

ITA 2217/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R

Section 132Section 69C

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1966/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R

Section 132Section 69C

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1965/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R

Section 132Section 69C