2021) 187 ITD 184, DCIT v. Patni Computers

114 ITR 159High Court2008#16506 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 74Section 90(2)Section 13Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Issues it is cited on

section 74carry forward of lossesazadi bachao andolansection 90(2)tax treatysection 90short term capital gainsection 24cross objectiondouble taxationprevious yearcompany

Judgments citing 2021) 187 ITD 184, DCIT v. Patni Computers

Asia Investment Corporation (Mauritius) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 2766/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(b)Section 69Section 74

…13 of India Mauritius DTAA. The observations of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Gold man Sachs Investment (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. DCIT(International taxation) reported in (2021) 187 ITD 184, DCIT vs. Patni Computers systems Ltd. reported in (2008) 114 ITR 159 Pune and the decision of Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Flagship Indian Investment Co. Mauritius Ltd. V. ASSTT. DIT reported in (2010) 38 SOT 426 reproduced herein above. Based on ratio laid down therein, we do not have any hesitation in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim benefit of carry forward of, the brought forward…

Asia Investment Corporation (Mauritius ) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 2765/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(b)Section 69Section 74

…13 of India Mauritius DTAA. The observations of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Gold man Sachs Investment (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. DCIT(International taxation) reported in (2021) 187 ITD 184, DCIT vs. Patni Computers systems Ltd. reported in (2008) 114 ITR 159 Pune and the decision of Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Flagship Indian Investment Co. Mauritius Ltd. V. ASSTT. DIT reported in (2010) 38 SOT 426 reproduced herein above. Based on ratio laid down therein, we do not have any hesitation in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim benefit of carry forward of, the brought forward…

Tvf Fund Ltd., Mauritius, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4632/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 153Section 74Section 90(2)

…cussion is also supported by the observations of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Gold man Sachs Investment (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. DCIT(International taxation) reported in (2021) 187 ITD 184, DCIT vs. Patni Computers systems Ltd. reported in (2008) 114 ITR 159 Pune and the decision of Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Flagship Indian Investment Co. Mauritius Ltd. V. ASSTT. DIT reported in (2010) 38 SOT 426 reproduced herein above. Based on ratio laid down therein, we do not have any hesitation in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim benefit of carry forward of, the brought forward…

Gyanendra Bansal vs. UOI & Ors

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

ITA/138/2004HC Delhi28 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

…nt, and therefore the amount received was a capital receipt and the alternative plea that if it was not a capital receipt, then it was a casual and non-recurring receipt, was rejected in light of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in C. Kamala v. CIT 114 ITR 159 (Karnataka). (ii) Once the sale was set aside pursuant to the compromise recorded by the Supreme Court, the Assessees could never be said to have acquired any right in the property, and therefore, they could not have transferred any right therein as well. The ITAT agreed with the counsel for the Assessees that the Assessees “had not acqui…

Girish Bansal vs. UOI & Ors

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

ITA/136/2004HC Delhi28 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

…nt, and therefore the amount received was a capital receipt and the alternative plea that if it was not a capital receipt, then it was a casual and non-recurring receipt, was rejected in light of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in C. Kamala v. CIT 114 ITR 159 (Karnataka). (ii) Once the sale was set aside pursuant to the compromise recorded by the Supreme Court, the Assessees could never be said to have acquired any right in the property, and therefore, they could not have transferred any right therein as well. The ITAT agreed with the counsel for the Assessees that the Assessees “had not acqui…

2021) 187 ITD 184, DCIT v. Patni Computers (114 ITR 159) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax