NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee transferred rights and interests, not shares directly, and the situs of this capital asset was in the USA, making the gains not taxable in India. However, since the assessee voluntarily offered the gains as taxable long-term capital gains in India as per a termination agreement, the Assessing Officer was directed to accept the capital gain offered in the return.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Non-Resident Indian, offered long-term capital gains from the transfer of rights in shares of Indian companies. The Assessing Officer treated these gains as short-term capital gains, arguing the period of holding was less than 24 months based on the effective agreement date.
What were the issues?
Whether the capital gains are short-term or long-term, and whether the capital asset's situs makes the gains taxable in India.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 9(1)(i),Section 2(42A),Section 112(1)(c)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India216 citing17 Taxmann.com 202 · 2012 · SC
- Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT215 citing239 ITR 775 · 1999 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT
Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging
the final assessment order dated 14.03.2022 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act,
1961 (in short ‘the Act’), pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, AY: 2017-18
in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel
(DRP).
Before we proceed to deal with the substantive issues arising
in the appeal, it is necessary to observe, a complaint dated
2023 addressed to the President, Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal was
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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- M/S. Joy Global (Uk) Limited, (Earlier… vs The ACIT (Int. Taxn.)-2, AhmedabadAhmedabad24 Aug 2022Allowed
Also relies on Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India
The Tribunal held that the method of calculating consideration (per tonne) does not alter the essential character of the contract. It also noted that income attributable to a PE should be limited to activities performed ...
- Augustus Capital Pte Ltd., Singapore vs DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International…Delhi15 Oct 2020Allowed
Also relies on Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India
The Tribunal held that Explanations 6 and 7 to Section 9(1)(i) should be read along with Explanation 5, which was given retrospective effect. Therefore, Explanation 7 should also be considered retrospective.
- M/S. Joy Global (Uk) Limited, (Formerly… vs The DCIT (Int. Taxn.)-2, AhmedabadAhmedabad6 Dec 2019Allowed
Also relies on Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India
The Tribunal held that the AO/DRP erred in their findings regarding the taxation of income from maintenance spares. The Tribunal set aside the additions made by the AO and directed them to be deleted.
- Mangilal Lakahji Chowdhary, Pune vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), PunePune23 Sept 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal deleted the addition for cessation of liability as it was not an actual cessation. It also deleted the rent disallowance, finding no merit in the revenue's argument of a colorable device. However, the additi...
- Thiruvananthapuram Road Development Co… vs DCIT 14(3)(1), MumbaiMumbai23 May 2018Partly Allowed
Also relies on Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that while the assessee is not the owner of the road, the right to collect toll constitutes a commercial right of a similar nature, falling under the category of intangible assets. Depreciation is allow...
More judgments on Section 9(1)(i)
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3228/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Fireeye Ireland Limited, Ireland vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITITA 1431/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- Grid Solutions Oy Limited, Finland, Foreign vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1049/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
