“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)

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 191/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

assessee as compared to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income- tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read with explanation 4 thereof has not been properly appreciated." 22. Thus, the definition of the term "royalty" in Article ... override the definition of "royalty" as provided in Explanation 2 to section 9(l)(vi) of the Act by virtue of section 90(2). Therefore, the definition of the term "royalty" under the India - Ireland DTAA being more beneficial to the assessee must only be considered in these appeals

Ces Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Ces Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcs4564P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 154Section 37(1)Section 90

foreign tax to the tune of Rs. 1772,470/-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

Spi Global Us Inc, Usa vs. DCIT International Taxation Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1912/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 9

hence can opt to be governed by the provisions of India- USA DTAA if more beneficial to it in terms of section 90(2) of the Act. 7.1 The perusal of records reveal that the assessee executed a document titled ‘statement of work’ effective as at 1st January, 2018 with

Uma Maheshwar Rao Vendavelli, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5 (3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 34/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Monish Sawkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Subramanian.S, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

Delhi) ♦ CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Karnataka). 13. It was submitted that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of India has entered into a DTAA, the provisions of the Act would apply to the extent

Superb Mind Holding Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Mauritius DTAA. 21. …………………. 22. ………………… 23. Mr. Pardiwala has also drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 90(2) of the Act as well as Article 13(4) of the Mauritius DTAA to emphasize that the gains arising from the transaction of sale of shares effected pursuant

First Abu Dhabi Bank Pjsc, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3279/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhfirst Abu Dhabi Bank Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Pjsc, Unit No.1101 & Income-Tax (It), Circle 1201 Platina Building, C- 2(3)(1), Room No. 1614, 59, G Block, Bandra Kurla 16Th Floor, Air India Complex, Bandra East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaecn2845F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai-2, Dated 20.07.2023 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: 1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Ao Has, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred In Initiating & Completing Assessment Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Without Issuing A Valid Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Ie, The Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Dated 29 June 2021 For Initiating Assessment Was Issued By National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac) Instead Of Being Issued By The Learned Ao (I.E Jurisdictional Assessing Officer) 2. Ground No. 2:

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 80G

Mumbai HC in ADIT v. Credit Agricole Indosuez [ITA No. 1430 of 2013] As per Section 90(2) of the Act, where an assessee is a resident of a country with whom India has entered into an agreement for avoidance of double taxation (DTAA) the provisions of the DTAA

Sungard Availability Services Lp, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer (It), Ward 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.987/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sungard Availability Services Lp, The Income Tax C/O.Suite 320, 565 Ease V Officer(It), Swedesford Road, Wayne, S Ward-4, Pune. Pennsylyania19087, Usa. B.O.Bhavan, Sector No.17, Pune Satara Road, Parvati, Pune – 411009. Pan: Abtfs0527J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Ganesh Bare – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 11.07.2023 Passed By Income Tax Officer(It), Ward-4, Pune Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, Passed In Pursuance To Directions Issued By Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.06.2023.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Sungard Availability Services Lp, Usa [A]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “C” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL

Vipul Parimal Thakore, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 3595/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri.Anuj Krisnadwala.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 90

Para 13 to 17 of the order which is read as under: 13. It was submitted that as per the provisions of Section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of India has entered into a DTAA, the provisions of the Act would apply to the extent they

Mr John Arunkumar Diaz, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3647/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyaljohn Arunkumar Diaz Vs. Dcit-19(1), 8A, Saahil, Room No. 203, 2 Nd Floor, 14 Altamount Road, Matrumandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aecpd6518C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Mahesh Rajora.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 44ASection 90

Power and Energy Consultants India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3420/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshpower & Energy Consultants Vs. Ito, India Pvt. Ltd, Ward-19(1), House No. U-136, Vikas Marg, Delhi Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg3625J Assessee By : Shri Harish Chaudhary, Ca Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca Ms. Neetu Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Harish Chaudhary, CaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 90ASection 91

Delhi) •CIT vs ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Karnataka). 13. It was submitted that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of India has entered into a DTAA, the provisions of the Act would apply to the extent

JCIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi vs. Axis Risk Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2920/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anupama Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 40Section 40a

appellant's projects outside India and reimbursements of the incidental expenses incurred on account of travelling, lodging and meals etc. (v) Section 90(2) of the Act lays down that where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the government of any other country for granting relief

Nira vs. Inh Kishoresinh Gehlot, Indiavs.CPC, Bangalore (Present Jurisdiction -Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad), Gujarat

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1068/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1068/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Niravsinh Kishoresinh Cpc बनाम/ Gehlot Bangalore Vs. Shivam Vasant Chowk, Present Jurisdiction - Dharmaj, Petlad Dist Income Tax Officer Anand, Anand, Gujarat Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad 388430 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajtpg6241P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Balaji V., Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. Dr 01/02/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/02/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Appellant Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Chennai (‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Intimation Order Dated 20.03.2020 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(1) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions Made By The Respective Parties & We Have Also Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record.

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2 2, Bmtc Building Koramangala vs. The Oasis Centre Llc, Dubai Uae

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 959/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.959/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit (International Taxation), Vs. M/S. The Oasis Centre Llc, Circle – 2(2), Land Mark Group West Wing Building Bengaluru. No.3, Off Hal Airport Main Road, Yamlur – 560 037, Bangalore. Pan : Aafct 2481 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

read as follows: “The conclusions in the aforestated paragraph have no direct relevance to the facts at hand as the effect of section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read with Explanation 4 thereof, is to treat the DTAA provisions as the law that must be followed by Indian

Ntt Global Data Centers & Cloud Infrastructure India Private Limited (Erstwhile Netmagic It Services Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT-10 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 2784/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blentt Global Data Centers & Cloud V. National E-Assessment Centre Infrastructure India Private Limited {Now Known As National {Erstwhile Netmagic It Services Faceless Appeal Centre} Private Limited} Delhi 7Th Floor, Hiranandani Business Park Sakinaka S.O., Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aaccn2366D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Shri Arpit Doshi & Ms. Payal Mehta Department Represented By : Shri S. Srinivasu

Section 37(1)

double tax avoidance agreement with Japan ("India- Japan tax treaty) for granting relief in respect of double taxation of income. As per section 90(2) of the Act, the assessee can take benefit of treaty provisions if it is more beneficial. Page No. 23 NTT Global Data Centers & Cloud Infrastructure

ACIT Circle- 10(1), New Delhi vs. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1487/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115J

view expressed by learned first appellate authority. Once the payments do not qualify as FTS under the respective treaty provisions, in terms with section 90(2) of the Act, treaty provisions being more beneficial would override the provisions contained in the domestic law. That being the legal position