This compilation indexes twelve rulings from Indian High Courts and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in which Section 91 — whether of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, or the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — appears among the sections cited. The collection spans November 2020 through July 2026 and is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law-firm researchers who need a consolidated starting point for locating primary sources across these proceedings. Each entry records the tribunal or court, the date of order, the sections engaged, and the reported outcome direction, followed by a brief note drawn exclusively from the source preview for that case.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference compiled from publicly available orders. It does not constitute legal advice, tax advice, or any form of professional opinion. Readers must consult the full judgment text and verify current status before relying on any entry.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 91 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides relief to a resident assessee in respect of income that has been taxed in a foreign country with which India does not have a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) under Section 90 or Section 90A. In broad terms, where such income is included in the total income of the assessee and income-tax has been paid on it in that foreign country, the assessee is entitled to a deduction from Indian income-tax of an amount equal to the lower of the Indian rate of tax and the rate of tax in the foreign country, computed on the doubly taxed income. The section is designed to provide unilateral relief and operates only where no bilateral treaty relief is available. Note that "Section 91" bears entirely different meanings in other statutes — including the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (best-evidence rule for documents), the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (appeals from the Registrar), and various state cooperative societies enactments — and several rulings in this compilation invoke those parallel provisions rather than the Income-tax Act.

The 12 rulings

1. Makrand Shirkant Padalkar And Anr vs Monarch Orchid Co Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd Thru

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 14 July 2026
Sections engaged: 13, 154B, 23(2), 91
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as Writ Petition No. 8034 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court, arising from a dispute involving Monarch Orchid Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and individual respondents Makrand Shrikant Padalkar and Smt. Leena Makrand Padalkar; the judgment was reserved on 2 July 2026 and pronounced on 14 July 2026. The source preview is procedural in nature and does not disclose the substantive finding on the merits beyond identifying the parties and the statutory provisions cited.

2. Shreesh Kumar And Ors vs Bramha Sunciety Cooperative Housing

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 8 July 2026
Sections engaged: 11, 91(1), 91(1)(a), 94(3), 94(3)(a), 94(3)(c)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 15261 of 2023) raised the question of whether the powers of a Co-operative Court to implead parties under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 are restricted, with the petitioners being the disputants in Dispute No. 106 of 2021 per the source preview. The judgment was reserved on 29 June 2026 and pronounced on 8 July 2026; the source preview does not disclose the substantive outcome on the impleadment question.

3. Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A vs Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 6 July 2026
Sections engaged: 2(1)(zg), 91
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 52/2024) was filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, challenging an order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing the appellant's opposition to the trademark ZORA registered in Class 24; the appellant, Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A., is the owner of the globally recognised mark ZARA per the source preview. The source preview does not disclose the final disposition of the trademark appeal on the merits.

4. Mr. Sridutta S vs Smt Poojitha A O

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 23 June 2026
Sections engaged: 91
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 5465 of 2026, GM-FC) was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru in CRL.MISC. 159/2024, per the source preview. The source preview records that "the writ petition is allowed" in an oral order, but does not elaborate on the substantive reasoning.

5. Dr.K.Manmohan Reddy vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By Prl. Secretary

Bench: Telangana High Court
Date: 6 October 2025
Sections engaged: 47, 91
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter comprised a large batch of Civil Revision Petitions and Writ Petitions (spanning CRP Nos. 5279 of 2016 and connected matters through 2017, and WP Nos. 3860/2008, 6759/2017, and 11157/2019) decided by a common order, with the source preview indicating the proceedings involved land tenancy records and documentary exhibits including pahani extracts and registered sale deeds from the 1950s and 1960s. The source preview is document-index heavy and does not disclose the substantive outcome of the common order.

6. Kasturben @ Kanchanben Girdharbhai vs Designated Authorioty, Principal

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 7 July 2025
Sections engaged: 91, 89(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter (R/Special Civil Application No. 5204 of 2025) was heard before the Gujarat High Court and involved the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 as respondent No. 1, with the source preview indicating the proceedings concerned eligibility under a scheme and noting that "the taxpayer would not be eligible for the Scheme in such cases" in a tabular extract. The source preview is partially redacted and does not disclose the full substantive reasoning or final disposition.

7. Amitkumar Pravinchandra vs Deputy Director Of Income Tax, Cpc

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 29 May 2025
Sections engaged: 154, 91
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 1240/SRT/2024) for Assessment Year 2023-24 (per the source preview) was filed by the assessee before the ITAT Surat Bench and emanates from an order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 27.09.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), per the source preview. The source preview does not disclose the substantive finding on the merits of the disputed order.

8. Principal Commissioner Of Central vs M/S Mitsubishi Electric Automotive

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 10 March 2023
Sections engaged: 91
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Central Excise Appeal No. 44 of 2015) was filed by the Revenue before the Punjab and Haryana High Court against a judgment dated 5.9.2014 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which had allowed the respondent-company's appeal against the order dated 31.3.2006 of the Commissioner Central Excise, Delhi-III, Gurgaon; the respondent is engaged in production and clearance of Electric Control units and Alternator assemblies per the source preview. The source preview does not disclose the High Court's final ruling on the central excise dispute. Note: the text_preview identifies this as a Central Excise matter; the "91" cited in the sections list may reference the applicable provision of the Central Excise Act or a related statute rather than the Income-tax Act, 1961.

9. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur, Jalandhar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- Iv (2)

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
Date: 21 February 2022
Sections engaged: 91
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeals (ITA Nos. 627 & 628/(Asr)/2017) relate to Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 (per the source preview), with the assessee's PAN recorded as AIKPK 9383L. The source preview indicates that the proceedings involved a question of admissibility of a photocopy of an agreement, with the bench referencing the principle under Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — that where terms of a contract or disposition of property have been reduced to document form, no oral evidence is permissible to prove those terms except the document itself or secondary evidence thereof — as a consideration in the fact-finding exercise.

10. Naresh Sharma, Pehowa vs ITO, W-2, Kurukshetra

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Date: 4 May 2021
Sections engaged: 91
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 199/CHD/2019) for Assessment Year 2010-11 (per the source preview) was filed by the assessee, whose PAN is recorded as BLZPS7706Q, challenging the correctness of the order dated 16.01.2019 of CIT(A), Karnal; an addition of Rs. 40 lakhs was made in the hands of the assessee per the source preview. The appeal was heard via Webex and proceeded ex-parte qua the assessee on merits after an adjournment application filed without stated reasons was not granted; the source preview does not disclose the final disposition.

11. Shri Krishna Bothra 302, Vinayak vs ITO Ward-6 (2), Jaipur, Ward-6(2)

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Date: 17 March 2021
Sections engaged: 115J, 139, 142, 143, 144, 147, 148, 153A, 234, 234A(1), 234A(3), 89
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 967/JP/2019) for Assessment Year 2010-11 (per the source preview) was filed by the assessee, whose PAN is ARZPB 5089 Q, against the order of CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated 21/05/2019; the hearing was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing COVID-19 situation, and the sole effective ground of appeal related to a single issue per the source preview. The source preview does not disclose the substantive outcome on the ground raised.

12. Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 11 November 2020
Sections engaged: 40(a), 90, 91
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter comprised two cross-appeals (IT(TP)A No. 3262/MUM/2017 and IT(TP)A No. 3389/MUM/2017) for Assessment Year 2007-08 (per the source preview), with PAN AAACR 4849 R belonging to Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.; the source preview records international transactions under transfer pricing dispute including provision of software, technical and consultancy services to associated enterprises, interest-bearing and interest-free loans, guarantees, and undertakings, with a total adjustment of Rs. 556.4 crores per the source preview. The source preview does not disclose the ITAT's final ruling on the transfer pricing or the specific application of the sections engaged.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 91 as a multi-statute citation. Across these twelve entries, "Section 91" refers to at least four different statutes — the Income-tax Act, 1961 (unilateral foreign tax relief), the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (best-evidence rule for documents), the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (appeals from the Registrar), and state cooperative society legislation. Researchers must identify the governing statute before treating these rulings as substantively comparable.
Predominance of High Court writ jurisdiction. Six of the twelve entries (cases 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) arise from writ petitions or commercial appellate proceedings before High Courts rather than from the regular income-tax appellate hierarchy, reflecting the breadth of contexts in which a section numbered "91" may be engaged.
Limited outcome disclosure in available previews. All twelve entries carry the outcome direction "Outcome not specified in source," indicating that the source previews available for this compilation do not capture the operative dispositive portion of the orders. Researchers should retrieve full judgment texts from indiankanoon.org or official court portals before drawing conclusions on holdings.
Cross-regime sourcing risk. At least two entries (cases 8 and 9) involve statutes outside the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Central Excise proceedings and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 respectively — while appearing in a corpus indexed under the income-tax regime. Practitioners researching Section 91 of the Income-tax Act specifically should filter by statute before citing these entries.
ITAT proceedings often involve evidentiary and procedural dimensions alongside substantive tax issues. Cases 9, 10, and 11 illustrate that ITAT proceedings may engage "Section 91" in an evidentiary context (best-evidence rule) or as part of a multi-section citation list, rather than necessarily invoking Section 91 of the Income-tax Act as the primary relief provision.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is a structured starting point for locating primary sources. Each entry provides the citation identifiers necessary to retrieve the full order from indiankanoon.org, official High Court portals, or the ITAT's own order repository. Before relying on any entry for any purpose, readers should download the full judgment text, confirm that the order has not been stayed, reversed, or appealed to a higher forum, and check whether any subsequent CBDT circular or instruction has modified the legal position on the provision in question.

Because "Section 91" appears across multiple statutes, researchers are advised to first confirm the governing statute in each case before treating entries as part of a single legal thread. The sections-engaged field records all sections cited in the order as indexed, not only those that were the primary subject of the court's or tribunal's reasoning. The outcome direction field in this compilation reflects what the source data records; where the source records "Outcome not specified," the full order must be consulted for the holding.

Finally, for income-tax matters specifically involving unilateral foreign tax relief under Section 91 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, researchers should cross-reference the relevant DTAA (to confirm no bilateral treaty applies), check for any CBDT clarification on the applicable foreign tax rate, and verify whether the foreign tax paid has been recognised under the laws of the source country — all of which are factual predicates that cannot be resolved from case previews alone.

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 91 & Related Provisions: 12 Indian Court & Tribunal Rulings (2020–2026)