Section 2(7)

Section 2(7) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 2(7), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Kenneth Malcolm Holland v DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My client is a US national who came to India to teach and wants the two-year professors' exemption in the treaty. He has no Tax Residency Certificate from the US and the department will not give him an Indian one. Can he still claim the exemption?
  No. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a non-resident claiming relief under a treaty is hit by s.90(4) unless he obtains a certificate of residence from the government of the country of which he claims to be resident, and that a passport, an appointment letter and Form 16 are no substitute. The department's order, recited at para 4 and left undisturbed, had also said that under Rule 21AB(3) it is a person resident in India who may apply to the Assessing Officer for a certificate of residence, so that a non-resident cannot obtain an Indian TRC; the Court dismissed the writ on s.90(4) alone and made no finding of its own on that rule.
• Prakash v ITO High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  I paid for the new house but it's in my son's name. Can I still claim 54F?
  No, on this view. The court held that ownership and domain over the new asset must run to the assessee from the sale of the original asset through to the purchase or construction; where the son became the owner, the assessee had no right over the property and section 54F was refused.
• CIT v Jagdish Medical Agencies High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My firm pays interest on a deposit standing in the name of an AOP, and one of my partners is a member of that AOP. Is the interest disallowed as interest to a partner?
  No. An association of persons is a separate person under s.2(31)(v) and a separate assessable entity, different from the firm, so interest paid by a firm to an AOP is not interest paid to a partner and is outside s.40(b). The Allahabad High Court applied the Supreme Court's reasoning in Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das, which held that interest paid to a partner who represents his Hindu undivided family, on the deposit of his own individual funds, does not fall within s.40(b).

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.