Section 5 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.5

Section 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123), cited in 368 of the 847 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 5

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
7 SCC 123 · 1998 · Supreme Court
368
citing judgments

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
292 ITR 416 · 2007 · Supreme Court
360
citing judgments

A Permanent Establishment (PE) signifies a foreign enterprise's virtual projection into another country, with a fixed place PE existing where an MNE's business is wholly or partly carried on. A dependent agent PE requires the agent to act as such and/or have the authority to conclude contracts for the foreign enterprise under DTAA provisions.

Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT
108 ITR 345 · 1977 · Supreme Court
209
citing judgments

Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, assuming that the law-making authority does not commit a mistake or make an omission. There is no room for purposive interpretation under direct tax laws.

CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Inc.
49 Taxmann.com 257 · 2014 · High Court
145
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot exceed the actual tax-exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant year. If no tax-exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted.

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.

CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd.
57 Taxmann.com 28 · 2015 · High Court
138
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A applies only when exempt income is actually received or receivable during the relevant previous year. The provision does not trigger merely upon incurring expenditure if no exempt income materialized in that year.

CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd.
82 ITR 452 · 1971 · Supreme Court
109
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by an assessee carrying on a composite business giving rise to both taxable and non-taxable income is allowable in its entirety without apportionment. This principle led to the subsequent introduction of Section 14A of the Income-tax Act.

Keshav Mills Ltd. v. CIT
23 ITR 230 · 1953 · Supreme Court
86
citing judgments

Income taxability depends on the real nature of the receipt and actual or constructive receipt of income, not merely on book entries. An amount is only "deemed to be received" if explicitly provided by the Income Tax Act, not by an assessee's unilateral intention.

Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil
122 Taxmann 114 · 2002 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments
Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT
386 ITR 353 · 2016 · High Court
61
citing judgments

The burden of proving the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) rests squarely on the Income Tax Department.

Judgments on Section 5

M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1172/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd…….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….……...Appellant 41, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aaecs 0445 G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kolkata……....................…….…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Parakh, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 23/02/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. We Have Heard Shri Pankaj Parekh, Fca, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee & Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R On Behalf Of The Revenue. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5

M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1171/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd…….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….……...Appellant 41, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aaecs 0445 G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kolkata……....................…….…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Parakh, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 23/02/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. We Have Heard Shri Pankaj Parekh, Fca, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee & Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R On Behalf Of The Revenue. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5

M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1170/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd…….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….……...Appellant 41, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aaecs 0445 G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kolkata……....................…….…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Parakh, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 23/02/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. We Have Heard Shri Pankaj Parekh, Fca, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee & Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R On Behalf Of The Revenue. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5

M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1169/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd…….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….……...Appellant 41, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aaecs 0445 G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kolkata……....................…….…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Parakh, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 23/02/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. We Have Heard Shri Pankaj Parekh, Fca, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee & Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R On Behalf Of The Revenue. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5