Which cases are most cited on Section 5(2)?

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (342 ITR 169) — 658 citing judgments; Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT (57 ITR 532) — 142 citing judgments; Carborandum Co. v. CIT (108 ITR 335) — 87 citing judgments; J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar (94 ITR 616) — 58 citing judgments; CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan (247 ITR 260) — 53 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 5(2)?

BharatTax indexes 430 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.5

Section 5(2) falls under section 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 5 (Scope of total income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 5 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 5(2) is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (342 ITR 169), cited in 658 of the 430 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 5(2)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.

342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court

658

citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

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.

Carborandum Co. v. CIT

108 ITR 335 · 1977 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar

94 ITR 616 · 1974 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee found to be the owner of bullion, etc., must explain its source. The Income Tax Officer must find the assessee to be the owner, not merely in possession.

CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan

247 ITR 260 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

Salary received by a non-resident for services rendered outside India accrues outside India and is not taxable in India. Only salary earned for work performed in India is regarded as income arising in India and is taxable.

ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd.

130 ITD 137 · 2011 · ITAT

citing judgments

Interest income, such as on income-tax refunds or fixed deposits, derived by a foreign entity with a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is taxable under DTAA if the debt-claim is effectively connected or attributable to the PE. For DTAA purposes, the terms 'attributable' and 'effectively connected' are considered to have the same meaning.

New India Insurance v. ACIT

18 SOT 51 · 2007 · ITAT

citing judgments

DIT (International Taxation) v. PrahladVijendra Rao

198 Taxmann 551 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

Som Nath Maini v. CIT

306 ITR 414 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer may reject the genuineness of a transaction if the evidence provided by the assessee is not trustworthy, even if the transaction appears to be conducted through cheques or other formal means. The burden of proving the genuineness of a transaction lies primarily on the assessee.

UPS SCS Asia Ltd. v. Asstt. DIT, (International Taxation)

50 SOT 268 · 2012 · ITAT

citing judgments

Managerial services require both planning and execution; mere execution of directions from another party does not qualify as managerial services.

Judgments on Section 5(2)

Elumalaiselvam, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are treated as allowed for

ITA 1409/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, CA

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)Section 90

ITO, Chennai vs. M/S. Cargoplan International (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 3140/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Mr.G.Seetharaman, CA

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 40Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

Asst DIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Warner Bro Distributing Inc., Mumbai

Accordingly, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1405/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 1405/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) वारनर "दर "ड"""बु"टंग आई एन सी Adit (It) -2(2), Vs Scindia House, 1St Floor, Warner Brother Distributing N M Marg, Ballard Estate, Inc., Mumbai -400 001 C/O Warner Bros Picture (India) Pvt Ltd, 4Th Floor, Eros Bldg, 42 M K Road, Mumbai -400 020 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. : 102/Mum/2015 Arising Out Of Ita No. : 1405/Mum/2014, Ay 2010-11 वारनर "दर "ड"""बु"टंग आई एन सी Vs Adit (It) -2(2), Scindia House, 1St Floor, Warner Brother Distributing N M Marg, Ballard Estate, Inc., Mumbai -400 001 C/O Warner Bros Picture (India) Pvt Ltd, 4Th Floor, Eros Bldg, 42 M K Road, Mumbai -400 020 Pan:Aaacu 6668 D ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Cross Objector) "ी डब"यू हसन Assessee-Cross Objector By : Shri W Hasan "ी जसबीर चौहान Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 27-10-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-10-2016 आदेश Order

For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 144C(13)Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)

Forbes Container Line Pte. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 972/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.972/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Forbes Container Line Pte. The Deputy Director Of बनाम/ Ltd., Income Tax (International V. Ground Floor, Taxation) – 3(2), Forbes Building, Scindia House, Charanjit Rai Marg, Fort, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. Mumbai – 400038. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcf0967H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. Pooja Swaroop,DR

Section 144Section 44BSection 5(2)Section 9

Ganesh Chandrasekaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 293/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rakesh Anand, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4453/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg:Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 Dcit Circle 30(1), Vs. Sh. Rakesh Anand, New Delhi. 3791, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. Pan: Adapa 4699 L ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Rakhi Bimal Sr Dr. Respondent By : Shri Jmesh Kuntal Ca Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2016. Date Of Order : 27/05/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Ms. Rakhi Bimal Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri Jmesh Kuntal CA

Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

Commissioner, Delhi Value Added Tax vs. M/S. Abb Ltd

In the result the appeals are found without any merit and

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2989/2016Supreme Court05 Apr 2016

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 3

Forbes Continer Line Pre Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 1607/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 144(3)Section 254(1)Section 44BSection 5(2)

Central Electronics Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Ddit, Circle-3(1), 3Rd Floor, C.R. Central Electronics Ltd., 4, Vs. Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Uttar Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Pradesh. (Pan:Aaacc1262G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 42Section 43BSection 9(1)(vii)

Pahilajrai Jaikishan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Pahilajrai Jaikishin, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata. vs. M/S T I L Limited., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 477/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.P Nag, JCIT, Ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kedia, Ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5(2)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Okaya Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2209/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Okaya Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Circle-13(1), Room No.406, Vs. D-7, Udyog Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P. Estate, Rohtak Road, New Delhi Delhi Pan:Aaaco8073E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. S.C. Gupta, Tax Consultant Revenue By : Sh.P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2016 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit (A)- Xvi, Delhi Dated 31.01.2013 Passed For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Revenue Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld, Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 40(A)(I) Of The I.T. Act Amounting To Rs.3,78,73,836/-; 2. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law Arid On Facts In Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Has Computed Its Income Based On I.T.Act, 1961 & Not As Per Dtaa Between Usa & India. Therefore, All Provisions Of I.T.Act, 1961 Shall Apply. 3. The Ld, Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That The Usa Office Being Merely A Branch Office & Provisions Of India Act Are Fully Applicable On It. 4. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law Arid On Facts By Ignoring The Fact That Though The Payments Were Made By The Branch Office Out Of The Profits Earned; These Profits Were Directly Or Indirectly Attributed To India Office Of The Assessee. 5 The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law Arid On Facts In Failing To Consider The Fact That Sec.195 Of The Act Requires Tds To Be Deducted On All Payments For Any Managerial, Technical & Consultancy Fees

For Appellant: Sh. S.C. Gupta, Tax ConsultantFor Respondent: Sh.P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 195Section 40Section 40aSection 9Section 9(1)(vii)