How many judgments are there on Section 90?

BharatTax indexes 1,075 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 90 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 90 of the Income Tax Act?

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471) is the decision most relied on for Section 90, cited in 914 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.

Q: Which cases are most cited on Section 90?

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471) — 914 citing judgments; Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706) — 691 citing judgments; Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT (239 ITR 587) — 243 citing judgments; PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala (391 ITR 218) — 228 citing judgments; CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co.(India) Pvt. Ltd. (178 Taxmann 505) — 172 citing judgments.

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

Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed

ITA 2374/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri M Balaganeshvkvkla-1340@Eaqcbz@2021¼Fu-Oa- 2016&17½ Vkvkla-2374@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2017&18½ Tata Steel Limited Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street Fort Mumbai-400 001 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaact2803M Cuke Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80GSection 90

Priya Savina Murzello, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 3238/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh TrivediFor Respondent: Shri Indira Adakil

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90Section 91

Infoaxon Technologies (India) P.Ltd, Meerut vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1025/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 90

Shyamol Banerji, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 26/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth N. Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Shyamol Banerji, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 25/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth N. Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Vitthal Srinivasan, Bengaluru vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1087/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Vitthal Srinivasan, Vs. Adit, No.A-1102 Mantri Espana, Central Processing Centre, 67, Kariyammana Agrahar Bellandur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Btpps 5944 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. Siddesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.11.2022 Of Nfac, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2019-20 On 29.08.2019. In The Return, The Assessee Claimed Foreign Tax Credit In Respect Of A Sum Of Rs.3,30,000/-. During The Previous Year, The Assessee Earned Income In Usa & Had Paid Taxes In Usa In Respect Of Income So Earned. It Is Not In Dispute That In Terms Of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (Dtaa) Between India & Usa R.W.S. 90 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’), The Assessee Is Entitled To Claim Credit For Taxes Paid In Usa On The Income Earned In Usa, Which Is Again Taxed In India. The Claim Was Rejected By The Ao In Intimation Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act Dated Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. G. Siddesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

Nishank Dhiren Vora, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3180/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3180/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Assessing Officer Nishank Dhiren Vora Mumbai. 403/404 Vaibhav Residency बिधम/ 408, Piramal Chembers, Plot No.Ndr 22, Opposite Vs. Lalbaug, Parel , Icici Bank Tilak Nagar, Mumbai-400012 Chembur, Mumbai-400089 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Agtpv4651R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Minal Kamble- Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 25.11.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Ay 2019-20 U/S 143(1). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra shahFor Respondent: Shri Minal Kamble-

Section 14(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Bhagya Adaveesh Ajaikumar, Mysore vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1067/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 90

Bhagya Adaveesh Ajaikumar, Mysore vs. ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1066/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 90

Smt. Gunjahalli Renuka, Bellary vs. The ACIT, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1104/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarismt. Gunjahalli Renuka Vs Acit, Central Circle - 1(3) "Hrishikesh", Goldsmith Street Bengaluru Besides Indian Bank Bellary 593101 Pan – Abypr5731L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ii, Bangalore Dated 18.10.2022 For Ay 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Once Again Upholding The Assessment Of Rs.29,48,650/- As The Total Income Of The Appellant In The Set-Aside Proceedings, Without Appreciating The Real Purport Of The Order Of The Hon'Ble Itat Restoring The Matter Back To The File Of The Learned Cit[A] In The First Round Of Proceedings Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 234Section 90

The Director of Income Tax vs. Ibm India Private Limited

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/218/2014HC Karnataka16 Jan 2023

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 260

Shri Unni Krishnan Vadakkedath Sugathan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Unni Krishnan Vadakkedath Sugathan, C/O G.P. Kapadia 61A, Mittal Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aappu3300G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (It)-4(3)(1), Room No. 1625, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sh. Kirit Mehta/Ankit V. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sh. Kirit Mehta/Ankit V. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 90

Mr Rohan Prakash Shah, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax-CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2789/MUM/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 90

Bbc Global News Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Bbc World News Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6052/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Blebbc Global News Ltd. Vs. Dict, Circle-1(1)2), (Earlier Known As Bbc International Taxation, Tower-D, 5Th Floor, World News Ltd.) 6Th Floor, Hindustan Times Civic Centre, House, Kg Marg, New Delhi – 110 002 New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aaccbc5483H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 90

Bbc Global News Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Bbc World News Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 8115/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 90

Praveen Sambhaji Raorane, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Thane

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

ITA 2589/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90Section 91

Mr Ashok Madhav Rao, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1288/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Mr. Ashok Madhav Rao Centralized Processing Flat No. 103, Dheeraj Centre, Dashan 2, Kokan Nagar, Vs. Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai- Income Tax Department, 400 060 Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 500 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afirp8784B Assessee By : Ketan Ved Revenue By : Shri Ujjawal Chavan Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2022

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Chavan SR AR

Section 143(1)Section 90