← 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)

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int) Tax Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6570/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 244ASection 44B

position that assessee has offered its income from operation of ships to tax under the deeming provisions contained in section 44B read with section 90(2) of the Act and Article 8 of the India Hong Kong Tax Treaty. It is the plea of the assessee that in view

Gulf Piping Company Wll, Abu Dhabi vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Dehradun

ITA 83/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

activity was utilized for the purpose of making or earning income from a source outside India.  The appellant has relied on Section 90(2) of the Act. It is argued that the provisions which are more beneficial - i.e. Treaty provisions or Income-tax Act, i.e. either of the two should

Gulf Piping Company Wll, United Arab Emirates vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Dehradun

ITA 81/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

activity was utilized for the purpose of making or earning income from a source outside India.  The appellant has relied on Section 90(2) of the Act. It is argued that the provisions which are more beneficial - i.e. Treaty provisions or Income-tax Act, i.e. either of the two should

Gulf Piping Company Wll, United Arab Emirates vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Dehradun

ITA 71/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

activity was utilized for the purpose of making or earning income from a source outside India.  The appellant has relied on Section 90(2) of the Act. It is argued that the provisions which are more beneficial - i.e. Treaty provisions or Income-tax Act, i.e. either of the two should

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

ITA 5257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

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

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

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5256/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

hands of Intelsat UK, the provisions of India-UK DTAA shall be applicable to the extent they are more beneficial as per section 90(2) of the Act. 15. As per the Revenue, by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976, Explanation-6 was inserted in section

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

ITA 5255/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

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

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

ITA 5254/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

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

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennet Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5253/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

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

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

ITA 5252/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20) 2 ORDER PER BENCH: The Revenue has filed the present

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

ITA 5251/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20) 2 ORDER PER BENCH: The Revenue has filed the present

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

ITA 5250/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

PER BENCH: The Revenue has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned orders of even date 27/06/2025, passed under

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

ITA 5249/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

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

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

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5248/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

hands of Intelsat UK, the provisions of India-UK DTAA shall be applicable to the extent they are more beneficial as per section 90(2) of the Act. 15. As per the Revenue, by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976, Explanation-6 was inserted in section

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

ITA 5247/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

PAGE 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP

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

ITA 5246/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20) ORDER PER BENCH: The Revenue has filed the present appeals

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Limited (Formerly Known As Kyocera Mita Asia Limited), Hongkong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Intt Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1664/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

place or any agent in India so as to constitute PE. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued that as per Section 90(2) of the Act, in case of a taxpayer who is a tax resident of any country with whom India has entered into a DTAA

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Limited, Hong Kong vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 380/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

place or any agent in India so as to constitute PE. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued that as per Section 90(2) of the Act, in case of a taxpayer who is a tax resident of any country with whom India has entered into a DTAA

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Ltd., (Formerly Known As Kyocera Mita Asia Limited), Hong Kong vs. ACIT, Circle International Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3546/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

place or any agent in India so as to constitute PE. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued that as per Section 90(2) of the Act, in case of a taxpayer who is a tax resident of any country with whom India has entered into a DTAA

Ishares Core Msci Total International Stock Etf (As A Successor to Ishare Core Taotal International Stock Mauritius Company ), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6774/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

treaty should be applied only to the 'net capital gain which forms part of total income; 10. failed to appreciate that as per section 90(2) of the Act, each provision of the Act should be considered separately and therefore for determining 'total income', the income under head "Capital gains ... section 2(24) of the Act, read with sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The AO held that the operation of section 90(2) of the Act does not change the method of set off for carry forward, and therefore, if there is any income during the year, whether