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)

M/S. Mangilal Bhutoria HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1369/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Mangilal Bhutoria Ito, Ward-35(4), Kolkata (Huf) Vs. 11, Clive Row, Kolkata- 700001. Pan: Aaehm 9888C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Chirag Desai, Aca Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata Dated 28.02.2018. 2. In This Case, The Authorised Representative Of The Assessee Has Moved An Application Informing Us That The Appeal Has Been Settled Under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Assessee Has Duly Filed The Copy Of The Certificate In Form 5 For Full & Final Settlement Of Tax Arrear Under Section 5(2) Read With Section 6 Of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 2 M/S. Mangilal Bhutoria (Huf) A.Y. 2014-15 3. Per Contra, The Ld. Dr Did Not Have Any Objection In This Regard.

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Desai, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 5(2)Section 6

ACIT, CC-2(3), Kolkata vs. Trans Damodar Coal Mining (P) Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of the above direction indicated in the preceding paragraph

ITA 77/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 5(2)Section 6

Micro Focus Marigalante Limited, United Kingdom vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITITA 877/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT

Section 5(2)

Shrimati. Lata Narang, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

Vivek Tracom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2636/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2636/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vivek Tracom Private Limited I.T.O., Ward - 5(4), Kolkata 32, Ezra Street Vs Kolkata - 700001 Pan : Aaacv8670J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 29/11/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Withdrawal Of This Appeal On The Ground That The Appeal Has Been Settled Under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Assessee Has Duly Filed The Copy Of The Certificate In Form 5 For Full & Final Settlement Of Tax Arrear Under Section 5(2) R.W.S. 6 Of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 3. Keeping In View These Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Especially The Fact That The Assessee Has Duly Complied With The Necessary Requirements Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, Permission As Sought By The Assessee Is Granted & This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. 4. In The Result, Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. Order Pronounced In The Court On 1St February, 2023 At Kolkata. (Rajesh Kumar) Vice-Kolkata, Dated 01/02/2023 *Sc Srps

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 5(2)

Income Tax Officer (It) 3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 500/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

Income Tax Officer (It) 3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Develope\Rs Ltd (As Sucessor of Lodha Developers Ltd Which Was Sucessor of Bellissimo Crown Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 498/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

Income Tax Officer (It), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (As Sucessor of Lodha Developers Ltd Which Was Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 497/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

M/S Nsi (India) Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as withdrawn under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme

ITA 265/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Lakhotia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT

Section 147Section 5(2)Section 6

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1) International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1567/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1566/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Alisha Sharma, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-1, Rewari

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 8558/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 147Section 234ASection 271Section 5(2)Section 6

M/S. Magnet Foundry Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1687/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1687/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Magnet Foundry Suppliers I.T.O., Ward - 4(2), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Vs 7/1, Sukhlal Jhari Lane 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700007 Pan : Aafcm3128B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sagar Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/04/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Withdrawal Of This Appeal On The Ground That The Appeal Has Been Settled Under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Assessee Has Duly Filed The Copy Of The Certificate In Form 5 For Full & Final Settlement Of Tax Arrear Under Section 5(2) R.W.S. 6 Of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 3. Keeping In View These Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Especially The Fact That The Assessee Has Duly Complied With The Necessary Requirements Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, Permission As Sought By The Assessee Is Granted & This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. 4. In The Result, Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. Order Pronounced In The Court On 16Th December, 2022 At Kolkata. (Girish Agrawal) Vice-Kolkata, Dated 16/12/2022 *Sc Srps

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT

Section 250Section 5(2)

M/S Maharashtra Weigh Bridge, Mumbai vs. ACIT 26 (2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6979/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 6

M/S. Warner Bros.Distributing Inc., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Intl Tax)-4(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed pro-tanto

ITA 1721/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvkvkla- 1721@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2019&20½ ..... Vihykfkhz/Applicant Warner Bros. Distributing Inc. C/Of The Act Warner Bros. Pictures India Pvt. Ltd. 407, 4Th Floor, Windfall, Sahar Plaza Complex, Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar Andheri East, Mumbai-400 059 Pan No. Aaacw6559R Cuke Vs. ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Room No.1611, 16Th Floor, Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash-Sr. DR

Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 5(2)