Section 90(2)

Section 90(2) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 90(2), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• AO v Nestle SA Supreme CourtHelps department
  My protocol has an MFN clause and I applied the lower rate India later agreed with an OECD member. Was I entitled to?
  No, on both counts. A notification under s.90(1) is a mandatory condition before any court, authority or tribunal can give effect to a treaty or to a protocol that alters the existing provisions of law, so an MFN clause does not import a later treaty's rate or scope by itself. And where the clause is triggered by India's treaty with a third state 'which is a member of the OECD', that state must have been an OECD member when it entered the treaty with India, not merely by the time the benefit is claimed.
• Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P Ltd v CIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  You pay a foreign supplier for software. Is that royalty, and must you deduct TDS?
  Not royalty. An end-user licence gives a limited right to use a copyrighted article, not an interest in the copyright, so the payment is not chargeable in India and no tax need be deducted under s.195.
• ADIT v E-Funds IT Solution Inc Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  We outsource back-office work to our Indian subsidiary. Does that give us a permanent establishment in India?
  No, not by itself. The Revenue must prove that a fixed place in India was at the disposal of the foreign company and that the foreign company carried on its own business through it. Close association between parent and subsidiary, and the fact that the Indian company depends on the group for its work, do not answer that question, and the functions-assets-risks analysis borrowed from transfer pricing is not the test for whether a fixed place permanent establishment exists.
• Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd v DIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  Our turnkey contract has offshore supply and offshore services alongside Indian work. Is the whole contract taxable in India?
  No — a composite turnkey contract can be split. Profits on equipment supplied and paid for outside India, where title passes outside India, are outside the Indian charge, because the contract being signed in India is immaterial and there must be a sufficient territorial nexus. On offshore services the Court read s.9(1)(vii) as requiring the services to be both utilised in India and rendered in India; that second requirement has since been removed retrospectively by statute, so only the offshore supply holding survives on the domestic law side.
• CIT v P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  I am resident in India but my rubber estate and my business are in Malaysia. The treaty says that income may be taxed there. Can India tax it as well?
  No, on this treaty. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals and held that neither the business income from the Malaysian rubber plantations nor the capital gain on the sale of the Malaysian property could be taxed in India. The property was in Malaysia, the permanent establishment was in Malaysia and there was none in India, so the closer personal and economic relations determined fiscal domicile and residence in India became irrelevant. Capital gains is income arising out of immovable property for the purposes of the Act, so Article 6 covered it. The Court declined to decide the semantic question whether may be taxed allocates the taxing power or merely permits it.
• Kern Enterprise Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My client's New Zealand company filed Indian returns and paid tax believing its place of effective management was in India, and New Zealand has since taxed the same income. Can it get the Indian tax back?
  Yes, on these facts. The Madras High Court quashed the order refusing rectification and refund, holding that CBDT Circular No. 8 of 2017 — under which section 6(3)(ii) does not apply to a company with turnover or gross receipts of Rs 50 crore or less in a financial year — is binding on the Department, so the company was not liable to Indian tax at all and the tax it had paid ought to have been refunded, with the Court adding that tax paid in excess must be refunded notwithstanding the procedure in section 155(14A) where the income was taxed in a foreign country.
• Foseco India Ltd. Company v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtCuts both waysUnder appeal
  Can I still rely on Colorcon Asia to get the treaty rate on DDT, or has the Bombay High Court unsettled it?
  It has unsettled it, but has not overruled it. On 27 April 2026 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, hearing seven appeals of Foseco India Ltd., framed two questions for a Larger Bench: whether the Division Bench decision in Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd. lays down the correct position in law when it holds that DDT is a tax paid by the company on the dividend income of the shareholder, entitling the shareholder to the benefit of the India-UK treaty; and whether, considering the Supreme Court's decision in Godrej & Boyce, Colorcon Asia is per incuriam. The Registry was directed to place the proceedings before the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench.
• Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtHelps taxpayerUnder appeal
  My Indian company paid DDT at over twenty per cent on dividend to its UK parent. Can I restrict it to the ten per cent treaty rate, and does the Special Bench decision stop me?
  A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa held that it can. It allowed the appeal, set aside the Board for Advance Rulings' ruling of 27 June 2024, and declared that Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to restrict the tax rate on dividends distributed by it to Colorcon Ltd, United Kingdom, at ten per cent under Article 11 of the India-UK tax treaty — on the reasoning that DDT paid by a distributing company is not an income tax on the profits or income of the company but a tax on the dividend, which is the income of the shareholder, charged in the company's hands only for administrative convenience, so that s.90(2) lets the lower treaty rate be applied.
• Blackstone Capital Partners Singapore VI v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerUnder appeal
  I hold a valid TRC. Can the AO go behind it and reopen my assessment for lack of substance?
  No. A valid tax residency certificate is statutorily the only evidence required to be eligible for treaty benefit, and the Indian authorities cannot disregard a certificate issued by another State's tax authority. Since Article 13(4) of the India-Singapore treaty then protected the capital gains, no income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and the s.148 notice was invalidated.
• Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt Ltd v Joint Secretary High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The competent authorities have settled your case under the mutual agreement procedure and the department still will not give effect to it. What order will the court make?
  A mandatory one. The Karnataka High Court declared that the revenue authorities cannot defer implementing or giving effect to a MAP settlement, directed them to amend the assessment orders for all four years in conformity with it, to allow the refund with permissible interest under the prescribed procedure, and to complete the exercise within four months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
• Danisco India P Ltd v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My overseas vendor has no Indian PAN — must I withhold 20 per cent under section 206AA when the treaty caps the rate at 10 per cent?
  No. The Delhi High Court held on 5 February 2018 that section 206AA, as it stood, must be read down: where the payee operates from a territory whose government has a double taxation avoidance agreement with India, the rate of deduction is the rate the treaty dictates, not 20 per cent. The petitioner remitted fees for technical services to a Singapore company with no Indian PAN; Article 12 of the India-Singapore treaty caps the tax at 10 per cent. Following Azadi Bachao Andolan, the Court held the treaty takes primacy, and noted that Parliament had itself softened the provision by substituting section 206AA(7) with effect from 1 June 2016.
• CIT v Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I paid administrative fees to my US group company without deducting TDS and the officer has disallowed the whole amount under section 40(a)(i). Can I use the treaty's non-discrimination article?
  Yes, for years before the 2005 amendment. The Delhi High Court held that section 40(a)(i), as it stood for assessment year 2001-02, disallowed a payment to a non-resident for failure to deduct tax while an identical payment to a resident carried no such consequence. That lack of parity in deductibility is discrimination under Article 26(3) of the India-US treaty. Section 90(2) makes the treaty prevail, and the Court rejected the argument that a comparison needs a matching provision in the treaty. The Rs.5.83 crore administrative fee was allowed and the Revenue's appeal dismissed.
• Standard Chartered Bank v ACIT (Mumbai Tribunal, 2026) ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  The officer has treated expatriate salaries paid by our London head office as head office expenditure and capped them under s.44C. Is that correct, and does the treaty's non-discrimination article get me out of s.44C altogether?
  On the first question, no. Section 44C restricts only executive and general administrative expenditure incurred outside India in connection with the management of the non-resident's affairs; salary of expatriate employees deputed to and working exclusively for the India branch is not head office expenditure merely because the head office paid it first. On the second, the Tribunal declined to hold that Article 26(2) of the India-UK treaty knocks out s.44C in every case — that has to be decided on the nature of the expenditure and the facts, read with Article 7(4).
• Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals), NFAC ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I paid DDT at the full domestic rate years ago and never claimed the treaty rate in my return. Is there any way to get the excess back now?
  The Delhi Tribunal allowed exactly that route. The company had paid DDT at 16.61 per cent on dividend to its Japanese parent for FY 2010-11, and after the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Tea and the Tribunal's decision in Giesecke & Devrient it applied to the Assessing Officer under s.237 on 27 November 2020 for refund of the excess of 6.61 per cent. The Tribunal held the claim maintainable notwithstanding that it had not been made in the return, followed the Bombay High Court in Colorcon Asia, and directed the Assessing Officer to charge tax on the dividend distributed to Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company Limited, Japan at ten per cent under Article 10 of the India-Japan treaty; all three appeals were allowed.
• Acronis Asia Pte Ltd v. DCIT — distribution revenue was not fees for technical services, a Singapore resident cannot be tested under the India-Switzerland treaty, and the s.10(50) exemption follows once Explanation 1 does not bite ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My client paid two per cent equalisation levy on its Indian receipts and the department has still assessed the same receipts as fees for technical services and denied s.10(50). In what order should the argument be run?
  Characterisation first, exemption second. The equalisation levy is charged by Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016 and not by the Income-tax Act; the Act's only point of contact is section 10(50), whose Explanation 1 takes out of the exemption income chargeable as royalty or fees for technical services under the Act read with a treaty. The ITAT Mumbai held that a Singapore limited-risk distributor's revenue from Indian sub-distributors was not fees for technical services — it rendered no service, owned no intellectual property and made nothing available — and that the Dispute Resolution Panel could not test a Singapore resident under the India-Switzerland treaty merely because the group's software and intellectual property sat in Switzerland. Having so held, the Tribunal held that the bar in Explanation 1 to section 10(50) did not come into operation and the assessee was entitled to the exclusion, subject to verification of payment of the levy.
• SC Lowy P I (LUX) v ACIT ITATHelps taxpayerUnder appeal
  The AO calls my Luxembourg fund a conduit and invokes the PPT. Is a TRC and some substance enough to answer that?
  Yes, on these facts, but not for the reason this entry previously gave. The Tribunal allowed the India-Luxembourg treaty benefits because the tax residency certificate was valid and unquestioned and the Assessing Officer brought no cogent material to show that the company was in substance a conduit - only views and presumptions. It applied the Delhi High Court's propositions on tax residency certificates, held that the burden of establishing that obtaining a benefit was one of the principal purposes lies on the revenue, and found that burden unmet on a record showing a Luxembourg company that filed and paid tax there, bore real operating costs and held 13.95 per cent of its portfolio in India.
• Saket Kanoi v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayer
  The officer says my client pays no tax in Dubai, so the India-UAE agreement cannot apply to him. Is that right?
  No. The Delhi Tribunal held that a resident of the UAE is entitled to the benefit of the India-UAE agreement even though the UAE levies no tax on him. Being 'liable to tax' in a Contracting State does not require that tax was actually paid; it is enough that the State has the right to tax, whether or not the right is exercised. The Assessing Officer's reasoning that there was no double taxation, so no relief was due, was rejected.
• Samsung R&D Institute India Bangalore P Ltd v JCIT ITATHelps taxpayer
  My foreign group companies ship me handsets, network equipment and other test gear free of cost so that I can test the software I write for them, and I send it back or scrap it when the testing is done. The AO has added the value under s.28(iv) as a benefit arising from my business. Can he?
  No, on these facts. The Bangalore Bench deleted an addition of Rs 7,37,33,056 under s.28(iv) on equipment supplied free of cost by the assessee's associated enterprises for testing software the assessee had developed for them. Two things carried it: the equipment was either returned or destroyed after testing, so nothing irretrievable or of enduring nature was made available to the assessee, and the price for the software development services had already been settled under a Mutual Agreement Procedure resolution between the competent authorities of India and Korea, in which the cost of indirect benefits should have been embedded - so if there were a nexus at all it belongs in a transfer pricing adjustment and not in a second addition under s.28(iv). The same order also deleted a s.40(a)(i) disallowance of depreciation on capitalised software, following the coordinate bench in the assessee's own case. Note what the order does not do: it decides nothing under s.194R.
• Valeo v ACIT (International Taxation), Chennai ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My French client offered dividend from its Indian subsidiaries at 5 per cent under the most favoured nation clause and claimed a refund. After the Supreme Court's decision in Nestle SA, what happens to that claim?
  It fails. The Chennai Tribunal applied Nestle SA and dismissed the ground, holding that the 5 per cent rate claimed under Article 11(2) of the India-France DTAA read with the Protocol most favoured nation clause, imported from India's treaties with Slovenia, Lithuania and Colombia, could not be given effect without a separate notification under s.90(1). The dividend therefore remains taxable at the treaty rate as notified, and the refund claimed on the 5 per cent basis goes.
• Linklaters LLP v ACIT (International Taxation), Mumbai ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Assessing Officer has taxed my client, a UK limited liability partnership, under the Independent Personal Services Article of the treaty because its partners are professionals. Can that Article apply to a firm at all?
  No, on this Tribunal's view. The Mumbai Tribunal held that Article 15 of the India-United Kingdom DTAA deals only with the taxability of independent personal services or independent activity of a similar character and not with a partnership firm, and that the assessee, not being an individual, was outside it. On the same order the Tribunal also held, following its own decisions in the assessee's earlier years, that the remuneration received for providing legal services was not fees for technical services and that the treaty overrode the Act.
• Sameer Malhotra v ACIT ITATHelps taxpayer
  I moved to Singapore with my family. Can the AO's tie-breaker questionnaire alone make me an Indian resident?
  No. A tie-breaker questionnaire is an important aid but cannot be the exclusive basis for the conclusion, and permanence of a home is assessed qualitatively as well as by duration, so a flat taken on rent abroad can be a permanent home. The Tribunal decided the tie-breaker principally on the centre of vital interests - the assessee had moved to Singapore with his family to earn there, so his personal and economic relations for that period were in Singapore - with habitual abode offered as an additional reason. The addition of global income was deleted and the Assessing Officer directed to accept the revised return.
• Brinda Ramakrishna v ITO ITATHelps taxpayer
  I filed Form 67 late and my foreign tax credit was disallowed. Does missing the deadline kill the claim?
  No, on this decision. The Bangalore Tribunal held that Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of foreign tax credit where Form 67 is filed late; filing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory; and the treaty overrides the Act, with the Rules unable to run contrary to the Act. The assessee had claimed credit of Rs 4,73,779 for Australian tax under section 90 read with Article 24 of the India-Australia treaty, filed Form 67 only on 18 April 2020, and had the credit refused. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, and also held the point could be taken in rectification proceedings under section 154.
• Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd v ADIT (International Taxation)-II, Hyderabad ITATHelps taxpayer
  My non-resident payees had no PAN and the treaty rate is ten per cent. The officer says s.206AA has a non obstante clause and overrides everything, so twenty per cent it is. Is there a Special Bench on this?
  There is, and it is against the department. The Hyderabad Special Bench held that s.206AA will not have an overriding effect over all other provisions of the Act, and that treaty provisions, to the extent more beneficial, override s.206AA by virtue of s.90(2). It answered the question referred to it in the negative and in favour of the assessee, and held that the deductor could not be required to deduct at the higher of the s.206AA rates on payments to non-residents having taxable income in India despite their failure to furnish PANs.
• Herbalife International India (P) Ltd v ACIT ITATCuts both ways
  I did not withhold tax on an administrative fee paid to my US parent. Can the Assessing Officer disallow the whole expense under section 40(a)(i) when a payment to an Indian party would not be disallowed?
  No, where the India-USA treaty applies. The Delhi Tribunal held that Article 26(3) of that treaty forbids exactly this discrimination: a disbursement to a resident of the other State must be deductible on the same conditions as a payment to a resident. As section 40(a)(i) then stood, non-deduction of tax led to disallowance only for payments to non-residents, so an Indian payer would prefer a resident supplier. Article 26(3) neutralises that, and by section 90(2) the more beneficial treaty provision prevails. The Tribunal therefore held section 40(a)(i) could not be invoked, even assuming the sum was chargeable in India, and left the chargeability question open.
• In re Vanenburg Group B.V. Advance RulingHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  Our Dutch company is moving its Indian subsidiary's shares to another group company in the Netherlands. If the gain is exempt under the treaty, do we still have to withhold, file a return and do a transfer pricing study?
  No, on all four counts. The Authority ruled that no taxable capital gain arose in India on Vanenburg Group B.V.'s proposed transfer of its shares in Cordys R&D (India) Pvt Ltd to Cordys Holding B.V., because article 13(5) of the India-Netherlands agreement leaves such gains taxable in the Netherlands where the transfer is part of a corporate reorganisation and the alienator holds at least ten per cent of the transferee. It followed that the transferee need not withhold under section 195, that no return was required under section 139, and that the transfer pricing provisions in sections 92 to 92F did not apply. The ruling binds only Vanenburg.
• Brown and Root Inc v CIT Advance RulingHelps taxpayer
  Our US company laid a submarine pipeline offshore India as a subcontractor. The work took 39 days. Does that give us a permanent establishment under the India-US treaty?
  No. The Authority ruled that Brown and Root Inc, a US company, had no permanent establishment in India and so the revenue from its subcontract with Hyundai Heavy Industries was not taxable here. The work - installing a 12-inch submarine gas pipeline between offshore platforms using the vessels Subtec 1 and Captain BO - ran 39 days, from 30 November 1996 to 7 January 1997. Article 5(2)(k) of the India-US convention makes a construction or installation project or supervisory activity a permanent establishment only where it continues more than 120 days in any twelve months. Falling short of that, article 7 was not attracted. The ruling binds only that applicant.
• CBDT Circular 1/2025 on the Principal Purpose Test CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayer
  The officer says the PPT in the MLI destroys my Mauritius capital gains exemption on shares bought in 2015. Does the Board's own circular help?
  Yes, on both points. The Board says the PPT is intended to apply prospectively — from the date the treaty or protocol carrying it enters into force, or from the MLI's entry into effect for that treaty under Article 35 — and that the grandfathering provisions in the India-Cyprus, India-Mauritius and India-Singapore treaties stay outside the PPT altogether and are governed by the treaties' own clauses. It also tells officers to treat the exercise as fact-specific and case-by-case rather than as a rule of thumb.
• Statutory position — s.9(1)(i) Explanation 2A: significant economic presence, the Rule 11UD thresholds of two crore rupees and three lakh users, its commencement from AY 2022-23, and why it does not by itself create a treaty permanent establishment CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Assessing Officer says my non-resident client has a significant economic presence in India and therefore a business connection. From which year does that provision actually operate, what are the thresholds, and does it override the treaty?
  Significant economic presence is a DOMESTIC-LAW expansion of 'business connection' in section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act. It has nothing to do with the equalisation levy, which is charged by Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016 and is not in the Income-tax Act at all. Explanation 2A in its present form was inserted by the Finance Act 2020 with effect from 1 April 2022, and it has two limbs: (a) transactions in goods, services or property with any person in India, including provision of download of data or software in India, where the aggregate of payments in the previous year exceeds a prescribed amount; and (b) systematic and continuous soliciting of business activities, or engaging in interaction, with a prescribed number of users in India. Rule 11UD prescribes both: TWO CRORE RUPEES and THREE LAKH USERS. Rule 11UD was inserted by the Income-tax (Thirteenth Amendment) Rules, 2021 with effect from 1 April 2022. And Explanation 2A does not by itself create a permanent establishment: it enlarges a domestic deeming provision, it does not amend any treaty, and where a treaty applies, section 90(2) allows the assessee the more beneficial position, so business profits remain taxable only if there is a permanent establishment as the treaty's own Article 5 defines it.
• Statutory position — section 206AA, sub-section (7) and rule 37BC: the twenty per cent rate, the five per cent provisos, and the non-resident's way out CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My non-resident payee has no PAN. Must I deduct at twenty per cent, and is there any prescribed alternative?
  Section 206AA(1) requires a deductee to furnish his permanent account number, failing which tax is deducted at the higher of the rate specified in the relevant provision, the rates in force, or twenty per cent — but two provisos substitute five per cent for twenty where the deduction is under section 194-O or section 194Q. Sub-section (7) disapplies the section altogether to a non-resident not being a company and to a foreign company in respect of interest on long-term bonds under section 194LC and any other payment subject to prescribed conditions, and rule 37BC prescribes those conditions. Under rule 37BC(1) the section does not apply to interest, royalty, fees for technical services, dividend and payments on transfer of any capital asset if the deductee furnishes the four items in sub-rule (2) to the deductor.
• Statutory position — the significant economic presence timeline: the earlier Explanation 2A, the assessment year in which there was none at all, and Explanation 3A on targeted advertising and data from 1 April 2021 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The notice invokes significant economic presence for an assessment year before 2022-23. Was there any such provision in force then, and what else did the Finance Act 2020 do to section 9(1)(i) for the digital economy?
  The equalisation levy is charged by Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016 and is not in the Income-tax Act; significant economic presence is the Income-tax Act's separate answer to the same problem, and its history is untidy in a way that matters. An earlier Explanation 2A was inserted into section 9(1)(i) by section 4 of the Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 1 April 2019. Section 5 of the Finance Act, 2020 then did three things: it OMITTED that Explanation with effect from 1 April 2021, inserted the present Explanation 2A with effect from 1 April 2022, and inserted a new Explanation 3A with effect from 1 April 2021. The consequence is that for assessment year 2021-22 there was no Explanation 2A on the statute book at all. Explanation 3A is the provision that survives that gap: from 1 April 2021 the income attributable to operations carried out in India under Explanation 1 'shall include' income from advertisement targeting an Indian-resident customer or a customer accessing it through an Indian internet protocol address, from sale of data collected from such a person, and from sale of goods or services using such data.
• Statutory position — s.90(2A): the treaty does not save you from GAAR, because Chapter X-A applies "even if such provisions are not beneficial" to the assessee CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client is a treaty resident and the treaty plainly gives him the better of it. The department is invoking Chapter X-A anyway. Can it, when s.90(2) says the more beneficial provision applies?
  It can, and s.90(2A) is the provision that says so. Section 90(2) is the ordinary rule that where India has a treaty, the provisions of the Act apply "to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee". Section 90(2A) then reads: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the provisions of Chapter X-A of the Act shall apply to the assessee even if such provisions are not beneficial to him." So the treaty override that normally protects a non-resident is expressly switched off for Chapter X-A, and the fact that a Chapter X-A determination leaves the taxpayer worse off than the treaty is not an answer to it.
• DCIT v Total Oil India Pvt Ltd (Special Bench) ITATHelps departmentOverruled
  My company paid dividend distribution tax on dividend to a French shareholder. Can I pay at the lower treaty rate on dividends instead of the section 115-O rate?
  This question is now before the Supreme Court and must not be treated as closed. What follows is what this Special Bench decided in April 2023; for where the point stands today, read the validity note. No, on the reasoning of this Special Bench. It treated dividend distribution tax under section 115-O as a charge on the domestic company on its own distributed profits, not a tax paid on behalf of the shareholder, following the Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce that the company does not act as the shareholder's agent and the charge is not on dividend in the shareholder's hands. It held that Tata Tea, which upheld the constitutional validity of section 115-O, does not support the taxpayer, a precedent being an authority only for what it actually decides. On that footing the shareholder's treaty rate does not limit the section 115-O rate.

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.