DCIT(IT)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ARUN MADHAVACHARI RANGACHARI, MUMBAI

ITA 3814/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 February 2026AY 2011-1234 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue were already adjudicated in favour of the assessee in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10. Therefore, the decision for AY 2009-10 squarely covered the issues in the present appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition made by the AO. The addition pertained to consultancy fees of INR 465 crores received by the assessee's foreign companies for projects in India. The AO alleged the services were utilized in India and the assessee failed to provide tax residency proof.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by following a previous ITAT decision, particularly concerning the applicability of the India-UAE DTAA and the existence of a Permanent Establishment in India.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(vii),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 04/04/2025, passed under section 250 r.w. section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. In the appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: “1) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2009-10 wherein the addition made by the AO was deleted, without

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 9(1)(vii)

All 1,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →