This compilation indexes twelve rulings — eight from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and four from the High Courts — in which Section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was among the sections engaged. The cases span the period November 2022 to July 2026, cover multiple ITAT benches (Delhi, Mumbai, Dehradun) and the Delhi and Bombay High Courts, and arise largely in the context of international taxation. The compilation is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured starting point for locating judgments involving treaty-related disputes under the Indian income-tax framework.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or a recommendation of any kind. Verify all entries against the full judgment text before relying on them.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Central Government to enter into agreements with foreign countries or specified territories for the avoidance of double taxation, for exchange of information, or for recovery of taxes. Section 90(2) specifically provides that where the Central Government has entered into a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with a foreign country, the provisions of the Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to the assessee than the provisions of such agreement — in other words, the assessee is entitled to be governed by whichever of the two sets of provisions (the Act or the DTAA) is more favourable. This sub-section is the foundational statutory basis for claims of treaty protection in Indian income-tax proceedings and is frequently invoked alongside other provisions of the Act dealing with chargeability of income, source-rule characterisation, foreign tax credits, and withholding obligations.

The 12 rulings

1. A.T. Kearney Limited,Gurgaon vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, New

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 15 July 2026
Sections engaged: 28(i), 29, 90(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 1933/Del/2025) was filed by the assessee before the ITAT Delhi for Assessment Year 2022-23, directed against the order of the Revenue. The source preview sets out a balance-sheet extract reflecting net assets of Rs. 2,030.96 lacs and consideration discharged through statutory deposit with income tax authorities and issuance of shares; the full substantive grounds and the tribunal's determination are not reproduced in the available source preview.

2. Parag Gupta,Bangalore vs ITO-Ward-7(1), New Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 30 June 2026
Sections engaged: 139(1), 139(4), 143(1), 295(1), 295(2)(ha), 80A, 90(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 661/Del/2026) concerned Assessment Year 2021-22. Per the source preview, the only effective issue before the tribunal was whether the learned JCITA was justified in upholding the action of the AO in denying a foreign tax credit of Rs. 13,91,287/- on the ground that Form No. 67 was filed beyond the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1). The assessee had filed his original return of income for AY 2021-22 on 24-12-21 declaring total income of Rs. 2,41,31,730/- and had claimed relief under Section 90 / 90A of the Act.

3. Tech Data (Singapore) Pte vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 30 June 2026
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi), 9(vii), 90(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 1829/Mum/2025) was filed by a Singapore-incorporated entity before the ITAT Mumbai for Assessment Year 2022-23. The source preview reflects that the appellant provided a range of intra-group services including strategic business advisory, information technology, finance, logistics, branding, tax, treasury, legal, ethics and compliance, human resources, and trade compliance; the full substantive findings and the tribunal's holding are not reproduced in the available source preview.

4. Shell International Petroleum Company vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 14 May 2026
Sections engaged: 90(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA 1939/MUM/2026) was filed before ITAT Mumbai for Assessment Year 2023-24 (PAN: AAICS0357B). Per the source preview, the receipts at issue comprised Rs. 2,24,86,11,796/- towards cost allocation for Business Support Services and Rs. 2,75,39,541/- towards reimbursements of IT cost; the full substantive grounds and the tribunal's determination on the treaty question are not reproduced in the available source preview.

5. Alibaba. Com Singapore E Commerce vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 11 May 2026
Sections engaged: 90(2), 270A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA 2070/MUM/2025) was filed before ITAT Mumbai for Assessment Year 2022-23 (PAN: AAHCA8415B). The source preview records capital gains-related particulars including long-term capital gain on transfer of shares of PayTM of Rs. 6,38,29,22,557/- and long-term capital loss on transfer of shares of Snapdeal of Rs. 14,02,18,72,880/- in respect of shares acquired before 01.04.2017; the full substantive findings and tribunal's holding are not reproduced in the available source preview.

6. Solar Turbines International vs DCIT, Circle- 2, International

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Dehradun
Date: 30 March 2026
Sections engaged: 154, 90(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 6710/DEL/2017) was filed by the assessee — identified in the source preview as the Singapore branch of Solar Turbines International Company, USA (PAN: AAJCS3585J) — before the ITAT Dehradun Bench for Assessment Year 2014-15, arising against the CIT(A)-2 Noida's order dated 14.06.2017. The source preview records that the case was called twice but none appeared on behalf of the assessee, and it was accordingly proceeded ex-parte; the CIT(A) was alleged to have erred in holding that the appellant had not established certain grounds, though the complete substantive findings are not reproduced in the available preview.

7. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- vs Mitsubishi Corporation (India) Pvt Ltd

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 3 September 2025
Sections engaged: 40A(i), 90(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA 370/2025) was filed by the Revenue before the Delhi High Court under Section 260A of the Act, challenging the ITAT order dated 12.08.2022 in ITA No. 9364/DEL/2019. Per the source preview, the issue is relatable to Section 40A(i) of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-17, and the Revenue's counsel stated before the court that the issue was covered by the majority view in a prior decision involving the same assessee. The court also condoned a delay of 29 days in filing and 914 days in re-filing the appeal for the reasons stated in the accompanying applications.

8. Viacom 18 Media Pvt Ltd vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 8 May 2025
Sections engaged: 195(2), 90(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter comprised a batch of eight consolidated income tax appeals before the Bombay High Court, spanning Assessment Years 2009-10 through 2013-14 (ITXA Nos. 1378/2018, 725/2015, 763/2015, 797/2015, 800/2015, 1661/2014, 1662/2014, and 1658/2014). The judgment was reserved on 6 May 2025 and pronounced on 8 May 2025; the substantive holding is not reproduced in the available source preview.

9. The Commissioner Of Income Tax - vs Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 24 July 2024
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi), 90(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter comprised a batch of connected appeals (ITA 334/2022, ITA 335/2022, ITA 206/2023, ITA 55/2023, and others) filed by the Revenue before the Delhi High Court. The judgment was reserved on 17 May 2024 and pronounced on 24 July 2024. The source preview identifies the respondent as a Singapore-incorporated entity and the sections engaged include section 9(1)(vi); the full substantive findings and the court's holding are not reproduced in the available source preview.

10. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- vs M/S. Polyplex Corporation Ltd

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 18 July 2023
Sections engaged: 143, 90(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter comprised four consolidated appeals (ITA 571/2019, 573/2019, 574/2019, and 575/2019) filed by the Revenue before the Delhi High Court, directed against a common ITAT order dated 24.01.2019. Per the source preview, the appeals concern Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14, and the parties before the court agreed that the controversy was common to all four AYs such that a decision on one would apply to the rest — a position also adopted before the Tribunal.

11. Iqvia Ag (Foreign Company), Mumbai vs The DCIT (Intl Tax) -2(2) -2, Mumbai

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 20 March 2023
Sections engaged: 90(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was heard before the ITAT Mumbai for Assessment Year 2019-20 (PAN: AACCI5872K), with the appellant identified as a foreign company previously known as IMS AG, incorporated in Switzerland. Per the source preview, the grounds challenged the AO's computation of income, which allegedly double-counted subscription fees of Rs. 53,75,62,440/- and also included commission income of Rs. 6,61,872/- described as exempt from tax; the AO's computed total tax was stated to be Rs. 15,92,85,334/- (including surcharge). Income components listed in the preview include commission income, subscription fees, interest income on debentures, and interest income on external commission borrowings.

12. United Arab Shipping Company vs DCIT (It)- 4(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 16 November 2022
Sections engaged: 90(2), 234D, 270A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was heard before the ITAT Mumbai for Assessment Year 2018-19 (PAN: AAACU4043J), with the appellant formerly known as United Arab Shipping Company (SAG). Per the source preview, one of the grounds challenged the AO's holding that 7.5% of Inland Haulage Charges (IHC) of Rs. 3,54,91,836/- was income taxable in the hands of the appellant and brought to tax at 40% of the taxable receipt; a further ground challenged the denial of the benefit of Article 8 of the India–UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Consistent presence of Section 90(2) in international taxation disputes. Across all twelve cases, Section 90(2) is cited alongside other provisions that determine the chargeability or quantum of income from cross-border transactions — including source-rule provisions, withholding obligations, and penalty sections. This reflects the section's role as a gateway provision in every treaty-benefit claim before Indian tribunals and courts.
Foreign or non-resident entities as appellants in the majority of ITAT cases. In cases 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, and 12, the appellant is either a foreign company or a non-resident entity (Singapore, Switzerland, UAE, USA). This pattern suggests that treaty-benefit disputes under Section 90(2) are disproportionately initiated by non-resident taxpayers contesting the Revenue's characterisation of their Indian-source income.
Batch and consolidated proceedings at the High Court level. Cases 8, 9, and 10 each involved multiple connected appeals consolidated before a single bench, covering several assessment years under a common legal question. This procedural pattern is common in treaty-related High Court appeals where the same legal issue recurs across years for the same assessee.
Form No. 67 and procedural compliance as a substantive issue. Case 2 (Parag Gupta) explicitly identifies denial of a foreign tax credit on the ground that Form No. 67 was filed after the due date under section 139(1). This illustrates that treaty benefit claims under Section 90(2) can turn on procedural compliance with prescribed forms and deadlines, not merely on the substantive treaty provision.
Presence of penalty and interest provisions alongside Section 90(2). Cases 5 and 12 engage Section 270A (penalty for under-reporting / misreporting), and case 12 additionally engages Section 234D (interest on excess refund). This indicates that treaty-related disputes often carry collateral penalty or interest consequences that are litigated in the same proceedings.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is a research starting point, not a definitive legal analysis. Each entry identifies the tribunal or court, the date of pronouncement, the sections engaged, and the substantive or procedural ground to the extent disclosed in the available source preview. Researchers should retrieve the full text of each judgment from indiankanoon.org, the official ITAT website, or the relevant High Court portal before drawing any conclusions about the ratio decidendi or the precise holding. Source previews, by their nature, are partial and may not capture the complete reasoning or dispositive directions of the bench.

Before citing any ruling in a legal submission or advisory, verify that it has not been stayed, reversed, or distinguished by a subsequent order of a coordinate or superior bench. Treaty-related litigation in India moves at multiple levels simultaneously — ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court — and a ruling at one level may be under challenge at a higher forum. Additionally, check whether the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued any circular, instruction, or notification that affects the statutory or treaty provision at issue, as administrative guidance can alter the practical effect of a judicial holding.

Finally, note that treaty-benefit claims under Section 90(2) are highly fact-specific. The identity of the contracting state, the characterisation of the income (royalty, fees for technical services, business income, shipping income, etc.), the presence or absence of a permanent establishment, and compliance with procedural requirements such as tax residency certificates and prescribed forms all affect the outcome. Readers should not extrapolate the outcome of one case to a different assessee, different treaty, or different assessment year without a careful comparison of the underlying facts.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 90(2) DTAA Precedence: 12 ITAT & HC Rulings (2022–2026)