Section 90 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.159

Section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 159 (Agreement with foreign countries or specified territories and adoption by Central Government of Agreement between Specified associations for double taxation relief) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 159 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 90 is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 of the 1,075 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 90

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT
432 ITR 471 · 2021 · Supreme Court
914
citing judgments

Payments for the supply or use of computer software, where there is no transfer of copyright but only a right to use the copyrighted product, are generally considered business profits and not 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or relevant DTAAs. This principle also applies to transponder fees, which are not taxable as royalty.

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.

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT
239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court
243
citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala
391 ITR 218 · 2017 · High Court
228
citing judgments

Income from shares and securities held by banks as stock-in-trade constitutes business income, hence Section 14A disallowance is not attracted. Further, any disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year.

CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co.(India) Pvt. Ltd.
178 Taxmann 505 · 2009 · Supreme Court
172
citing judgments
Gramaphone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey
132 Taxmann 373 · 2003 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments
Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 323 · 2010 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

Membership rights and business contracts, as 'business or commercial rights of similar nature' to a license or franchise, qualify as intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust
144 ITR 146 · 1983 · High Court
124
citing judgments

Sections 4 and 5 of the Income Tax Act, which define total income and chargeability, are subject to Section 90, meaning that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the Act's provisions in case of a conflict.

Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT
382 ITR 179 · 2016 · High Court
122
citing judgments

Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is allowable even if no tax is paid in India on the corresponding income due to deductions under sections 10A or 10AA, or losses in other units. The scope of income eligible for deduction under Section 10AA includes interest on deposits and realized gains on forward contracts.

DCIT v. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 332 · 2023 · ITAT
115
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 90

Vikash Daga, Gurghaon vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1812/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Vikash Daga, Vs Dcit, D-022, The Belaire, Circle 3(1), Golf Course Road, Gurgaon. Dlf V, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Adipd4214E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Kachhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Nfac/2017-18/10084687 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Ito, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kachhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 90

Arvind Prabhakar Bajirao, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 376/NAG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Arvind BajiraoFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

Deepak Shimoga Padmaraju, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate byFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 90

Dabur India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2593/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshdabur India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Circle-7(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacd0474C Assessee By : Shri M. P. Rastogi, Adv Shri Shivam Malik, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 154Section 234BSection 90Section 90ASection 91

Yogesh Kotiyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 2(1)2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 244ASection 270ASection 5(2)(a)Section 6(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

Vikas Kappor, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 77/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 90

Income Tax Officer Ncw 19(4), Chennai vs. Chengam Durga, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1491/CHNY/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1491/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Smt. Chengam Durga बनाम Non-Corporate Ward-19(4) 50, Kasi Estate, Ashok Nagar, / Vs. Chennai. Jafferkhanpet, Chennai-600 083. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Achpd-0525-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri K.R.Sudersan (Ca) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri K.R.Sudersan (CA) -Ld. AR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

DCIT - Circle - 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bytescale Technologies Pr Ivate Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A). Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed

ITA 2740/MUM/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 27Section 90

Mahesh Ram Vittal, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1078/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251

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

Narendra Nath Ratnakaram, Bangalore vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1101/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Adam Kajabee, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80ASection 90

Narendra Nath Ratnakaram, Bangalore vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1100/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Adam Kajabee, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80ASection 90

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

Sh. Pawan Kumar, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ahuja, Advocate and Shri Pawan Kumar, AssesseFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Ssnr Projects Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 161/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2019-20) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs 2464 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 29/Viz/2023 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2019-20) M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs 2464 C (Cross Objector / Respondent In (Appellant In Appeal) Appeal) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Samuel Nagadesi ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2024 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 28/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Samuel NagadesiFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

Income Tax Office, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad vs. Venigandla Krishna, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 45/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं/Ita No. 45/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Income Tax Officer, Venigandla Krishna, Ward-12(1), Vs. Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Bgkpv3694J] अपीलधर्थी/Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी/Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2024 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 27/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M: Challenging The Order Dated 20-12-2023 Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(Appeals)-6, Mumbai, Revenue Preferred This Appeal For The Ay. 2021-22. 2. Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Is An Individual, Having Income From India & Abroad. He Has Filed The Income Tax Returns By Declaring Income From All Sources. Assessee Filed Form 67 After The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return & Claimed The Relief Under Section 90/9A Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Amounting To Rs. 59,07,195/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Assessing Officer Disallowed The Foreign Tax Credit (Ftc) Claimed By The Assessee & Finalized The Assessment. Aggrieved By Such A Finding Of The Assessing Officer, Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Cit(A). 3. Learned Addl/Jcit(A) After Considering The Facts Of The Case, Allowed The Appeal Of Assessee, Directing The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer To Allow The Ftc As Per Form 67 Filed By The Assessee & Claimed In His Itr For The Said Year, By Stating As Under:

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 139Section 90

Nagubabu Kuchibhotla, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 28/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.28/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Nagubabu Vs. Income Tax Officer Kuchibhotla Ward-12(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ahlpk3559L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. P Prabhakara Murthy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2020-21. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit(A)Nfac In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.4,40,939/- Being Foreign Tax Credit Claimed By The Assessee By Way Of Tax Relief U/S 90 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: Adv. P Prabhakara MurthyFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Pramod Tarade, Raigad vs. CIT ( NFAC ), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 898/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pramod Tarade, The Commissioner Of A-2, Sai Ameya Chs, Plot V Income Tax,[Nfac]. No.28, Sector-12, Kharghar, S Panvel, Raigad – 410210. Maharashtra. Pan: Aevpt9870L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarun G – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2021-22 Passed On 24.06.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Nfac, Dt. 24-06-2023 For The A.Y. 2021 -22 Is Contrary To Law & Facts & In The Circumstances Of Pramod Tarade [A]

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Saif II-Se Investment Mauritius Ltd

ITA - 124 / 2024HC Delhi19 Feb 2024

Rajat Dhara, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1914/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1914/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajat Dhara............................................................…………………….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Abqpd1200L] Vs. Dcit (I.T), Circle-2(1), Kolkata...…….…..….........…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Earlier Decided By The Order Of The Tribunal Dated March 02, 2022, However, The Revenue Moved An M.A No.35/Kol/2022 Stating Therein That A Mistake Apparent On Record Has Occurred In The Order Of The Tribunal Dated 02.03.2022. Therefore, Vide Order Dated 15.12.2023 Passed In M.A No.35/Kol/2022, The Final Order Dated 02.03.2022 Passed In Ita No.1914/Kol/2019 Was Recalled. The Appeal Has Been Heard Afresh. 3. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 5Section 5(1)Section 90