← All Phrases

“Section 90(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 90Section 90(2)547 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 90(2) is Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), cited in 691 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 90(2)

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan
263 ITR 706 · 2003 · Supreme Court
691
citing judgments

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

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).

Skycell Communications Ltd. v. DCIT
251 ITR 53 · 2001 · High Court
253
citing judgments

Technical services involve human intervention and expertise, not just routine or machine-based operations. Routine customer support and standard facility provision through technology do not constitute technical services under the Act.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat v. ITO
296 ITR 90 · 2008 · High Court
171
citing judgments

A live link of third-party information can form the basis for reopening an assessment under Section 148, provided it contains material facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing Officer must demonstrate a "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, which can be satisfied by such information even if it pertains to other assessees or relates to accommodation entries.

Judgments citing Section 90(2)

Ge Engine Services Llc, United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

ITA 3700/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)

and/or Article 12 of the India-US DTAA. Further, the assessee submitted that as per provisions of Section 90(2) of the Act, a non-resident has the option of being taxed in India under provisions of the Act or provisions of the DTAA entered between India and the country

Amith Vishnav Gudimella, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1705/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1705/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Amith Vishnav The Income Tax Officer, Gudimella, Hyderabad. Ward-12(1), Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aghpv2565J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 91

taxable in India. Article 24 of India-Italy DTAA provides for credit towards foreign taxes paid for earning income arising from foreign soil. Section 90(2) of the Act provides that the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to the assessee. Article

Amit Satpathy, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5930/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailamit Satpathy, Flat No.404, Tower A, Imperial Heights, Oshirwara, Goregaon (West) ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400104 Pan: Arrps8419D V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Assistant Director Of Income Tax, …………….Respondent Central Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru - 560500

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 90(2)

exclusion claim of INR 41,79,095 claim made by the appellant towards salary income earned in UK ("UK sourced income"), as per section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act') read with the Article 16(1) of DTAA between India and UK, despite producing

Bobst Bielefeld Gmbh, Germany vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6030/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

section 44DA of the Act would not be applicable in its case. The appellant has pointed out that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, the provisions of the Treaty shall apply to the extent that the same are more beneficial as compared to the provisions

Bobst Bielefeld Gmbh, Germany vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6029/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

section 44DA of the Act would not be applicable in its case. The appellant has pointed out that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, the provisions of the Treaty shall apply to the extent that the same are more beneficial as compared to the provisions

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT (Int Tax) Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5161/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2023-24 Owens Corning (Singapore) Deputy Commissioner Of Pte Ltd., Income Tax (International Tax), C/O. Owens Corning (India) Vs. Circle-3(2)(2), Pvt. Limited, 6Th Floor, 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Hiranandani Gardens, Bandra Kurla Complex, Powai, Mumbai-400051. Maharashtra-400076. Pan : Aabco5666L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sandeep Bhalla For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 10-07-2025, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, ("Ld.Drp"), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 115ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law prevailing on the subject, as per section 90(2) of the Act, the income from fees for technical services ought to have been taxed at the beneficial tax rate of 10% under Article 12 of India

Goldman Sachs Mauritius Nbfc Llc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – (International Taxation) - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5926/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2023-24 Goldman Sachs Mauritius Nbfc Assistant Commissioner Of Llc, Income Tax – (International C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Taxation)-2(3)(2), Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Room No.610, 6Th Floor Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Mumbai-400028 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (Pan: Aaecg8689C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Act Dated 14.07.2025, Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Mumbai Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2025-26/1077165542(1), Dated 18.06.2025 Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Ay 2023-24. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 5Section 74

subsequent years u/s 74 of the Act as assessee chose to take the benefit of Section 74 by virtue of provisions of Section 90(2) in the assessment year 2019-20. In the year under consideration, assessee has claimed the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA under Article

DCIT (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad vs. Thogarchedu Subha Sri, Hyderabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1058/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri BG Reddy, Advocate
Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90(4)Section 90(5)

explanation, if any, given to it by the Central Government.” 8. On a careful perusal of above, we find that Section 90(2) of the Act confers a substantive statutory right upon an assessee to be governed by the provisions of the DTAA to the extent they are more beneficial ... does not create the right to claim DTAA benefit; it only facilitates verification of information. The right flows from the DTAA read with section 90(2) of the Act. Once tax residency and treaty entitlement are established, Form 10F remains a procedural compliance. Hence, we find considerable force

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1751/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalshell International Petroleum Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited Income Tax (International C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd Floor, Taxation) 4(2)(1), Lodhaexcelus, Apollo Mills Mumbai Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal and Shreyas Sardesai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

provision of business support services and research & development/technical services. Since assessee is a tax resident of the U.K., in view of provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, it is entitled to the beneficial provisions of the India-UK Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) which it had availed while

ITO (It)- 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7523/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Mr. Ajit Kumar Jain
Section 195Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 971

Intelsat UK, the provisions of India-UK DTAA s UK DTAA shall be applicable to the extent they are more beneficial as per section 90(2) of applicable to the extent they are more beneficial as per section 90(2) of applicable to the extent they are more beneficial ... section 90(2) of the Act. 15. As per the Revenue, by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective As per the Revenue, by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective As per the Revenue, by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976, Explanation effect from 01.06.1976, Explanation

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internatonal Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 887/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

General Reinsurance Ag, Cologne, Germany vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4691/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internatonal Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2448/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2447/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai

ITA 929/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the

ITA 1041/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80HSection 8O

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Sophos Technologies Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

connection whatsoever with the primary income-tax liability in respect of the profits of the company declared in the dividend. Further, section 90(2) of the Act provides an overriding effect to the provisions of DTAA over the Act, to the extent that they are more beneficial to the taxpayers ... have made any material difference to the applicability of Section 14-A. The BFAR also erred in not appreciating that as per Section 90(2) of the Income Tax, the provision of DTAA would prevail over the domestic law to the extent they are more beneficial to the assessee

Turf Estate Jv, Mumbai vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6923/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 90A

engineering services for its residential projects at Mumbai, expenses of which have been debited to project work in progress. By resorting to section 90(2) of the Act, assessee availed the benefit under the DTAA between the respective countries where each of the payee is the resident. Reference was made

Suvodeep Pyne, Garia vs. ITO, Ward 63(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

tune of Rs. 17,72,470/- was deducted in United Kingdom under DTAA between India and UK and provision of Section 90(2) of the Act. We also note that Rule 128 sub-Rule 9 provides that Form- 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing

Suvodeep Pyne, Garia vs. ITO, Ward 63(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

tune of Rs. 17,72,470/- was deducted in United Kingdom under DTAA between India and UK and provision of Section 90(2) of the Act. We also note that Rule 128 sub-Rule 9 provides that Form- 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing