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

Jaison Thomas, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-70(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 160/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh.Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 90

Prasad Nimba Thakur, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 889/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.889/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Prasad Nimba Thakur, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(4), Pune. F-7, Satyamev Co. Hsg. Society, Nda Pashan Road, Maharashtra- 411021. Pan : Aeppt6799E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Sonal Sonkavde Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 15.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual & Resident Deriving Income Under The Head “Salaries”. During The Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under 2 Consideration, The Appellant Was Deputed To France. The Salary Income Earned In France For Services Rendered By Him In France & Claimed The Benefit Of Foreign Tax Credit Of Rs.1,19,191/- Under The Provisions Of Section 90 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Read With Article 25(1) Of The India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘Dtaa’). The Said Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Without Granting The Foreign Tax Credit Vide Intimation Dated 28.05.2020. 3. Being Aggrieved, An Appeal Was Filed Before The Nfac On 24.03.2023 With The Delay Of 1000 Days. The Nfac After Excluding The Period Of Delay Attributable To The Covid-19 Pandemic Covered By The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation, In Re (2022) 441 Itr 722 (Sc) Dated 10.01.2022, Wherein, The Limitation Prescribed By Various Statutes Was Suo Motu Extended On Account Of Difficulties Faced By The Citizens Of The Country On Account Of Pandemic Covid-19, The Delay Occurred From 01.03.2022 To 24.03.2023 I.E.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Sonal Sonkavde
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Shalini Bhupal, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 271/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Smt.Shalini Bhupal Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyerabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Acepb2655G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. K. Haritha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.03.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. There Is A Delay Of 2Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Petition Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By 2 Days Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. K. Haritha, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 39Section 90

Deloitte India Advisory Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1202/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: The Revised Return, Therefore The Appellant Ought To Have Been Allowed Entire Foreign Tax Relief Of Rs. 2,82,44,841. 1.3 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Appreciated That Rule 128 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 Does Not Provide For Disallowance Of Foreign Tax Relief In Case Of Filing Of Revised Form 67 Along With The Revised Return. 1.4 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Granted The Balance Foreign Tax Relief Amounting To Rs. 1,34,86,569 Since The Appellant Has Filed The Revised Form 67 Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Revised Return Of Income.

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 90(2)

Neha Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2020-21 Neha Kapoor Vs. Ito, Ward 70(1), C/O C.S. Anand, Advocate, New Delhi, 104 Pankaj Tower 10 Lsc, Savita Vihar, New Delhi Pan Biopk2958N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C.S. Anand, Advocate Department By: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of 29.08.2023 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Sudhir Vrundavandas Valia, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Cir-20(1), Mumbai

ITA 1096/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80ISection 90

Amit Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1941/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: the lower authorities and is forming part of the records. It is not in dispute that the services were rendered by the assessee only in Netherlands during the year under consideration. However, the assessee was also sent on deputation to India on behalf of Akzo Netherlands. For administrative convenience, the Amit Jain vs. ACIT Page 3 of 9

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 192Section 9Section 90

Leapfrog Financial Inclusion India (II) Ltd, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 366/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Leapfrog Financial Inclusion India (II) Ltd, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 365/DEL/2023[2019-2]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Mr Yogesh Dnyandeo Kinage, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1458/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 6(1)Section 90

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Venkateswara Rao Thotakura, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 17/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 295(1)Section 295(2)Section 90Section 90ASection 91

Suresh Kumar Doodi, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 90

Tushar James, Bangalore vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1479/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

Tushar James, Bangalore vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1478/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

Rita N Patwardhan, Nasik vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2537/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 90(2)

M/S Aban Singapore Pte Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITTPA 38/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathai.T.(Tp)A. No.38/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Aban Singapore Pte Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O P. Murali & Co., Vs. Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, International Tax 1(1), Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. Chennai. [Pan: Aaqca2845Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Sasikumar, Cit For : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 12.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20 In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 30.06.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Intl Tax 11) & Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To General As Ao Is Bad Both In The Eyes Of Law & On Facts.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 28Section 40Section 43Section 44BSection 90

M/S.Aban Singapore Pte Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(1), Chennai

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

ITTPA 13/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathai.T.(Tp)A. No.13/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Aban Singapore Pte Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O P. Murali & Co., Vs. Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, International Tax 1(1), Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. Chennai. [Pan: Aaqca2845Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Sasikumar, Cit For : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 09.02.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 23.01.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Intl Tax 1(1) & Chennai (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao') Is Bad Both In The Eve Of Law & On Facts.

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195(2)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 90

M/S. Deep Drilling 5 Pte Limited, Singapore vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(1), Chennai

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

ITTPA 1/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathai.T.(Tp)A. No.1/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Deep Drilling 5 Pte Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O P. Murali & Co., Vs. Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, International Tax 1(1), Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. Chennai. [Pan: Aafcd9063N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Sasikumar, Cit For : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 21.01.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 30.12.2021. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Intl Tax 1(1) & Chennai (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao') Is Bad Both In The Eve Of Law & On Facts.

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195(2)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 90

Wolrdpart Limited, Maharashtra vs. DCIT International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITTPA 36/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 36/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. World Part Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Bsr & Associates Llp, V. Income-Tax, 7Th Floor, Business Plaza, International Taxation -2(2), Westin Hotel Campus, Tower 1, Bsnl Building, 36/3-B Koregaon Park Annex, Greams Road, Mundhwa Road, Ghorpadi, Chennai – 600 006. Pune, Maharashtra – 411 001. [Pan: Aaacw-9185-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Suresh Guduri, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Guduri, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 94A

Mahua Bagchi, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 61, Kolkata

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

ITA 3/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 90(2)