(5)) 3.12. DCIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd.

ISHARES CORE MSCI TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARE CORE TAOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK MAURITIUS COMPANY ),MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

…er, the provisions of the act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to the tax payer. 6.4.6. The Ld.AR in support relied on following observations from the decision of Hon’ble Pune Bench in case of Patni Computers Systems Ltd., reported in (2008) 114 ITD 159 8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in binding on us under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The prevailing legal position, therefore, is that once an income is held to be taxable in a tax jurisdiction under a double taxation avoidance agreement, and unless there is a specific mention that it can also be taxed in the other t…

ISHARES CORE MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES CORE EMERGING MARKETS MAURITIUS COMPANY ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TP) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

…er, the provisions of the act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to the tax payer. 6.4.6. The Ld.AR in support relied on following observations from the decision of Hon’ble Pune Bench in case of Patni Computers Systems Ltd., reported in (2008) 114 ITD 159 8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in binding on us under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The prevailing legal position, therefore, is that once an income is held to be taxable in a tax jurisdiction under a double taxation avoidance agreement, and unless there is a specific mention that it can also be taxed in the other t…

G S STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…an assessee and that the assessee, even if it did not opt for the treaty in one year, is not precluded from availing treaty benefits in subsequent years; reliance in that decision was also placed on the Pune Bench ruling in Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune) for this proposition. 19. The principle laid down in Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. (supra) has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions cited by the assessee, inter alia: Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., ITA Nos. 2062 & 2063/Mum/2025 (order dated 10.10.2025); J.P. Morgan India Investment Company (Mauritius) Ltd.…

DCIT (IT) -3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JP MORGAN INDIA SMALLER COMPANIES FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

…2) of the Act. In the context of adopting a different position for each tax year with respect to electing to be taxed under the provisions of the Act vis-à-vis the Treaty, the appellant has relied upon the case of DCIT v. Patni Computer Systems Limited (2008) 114 ITD 159 (Pune ITAT), Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd v. ADIT (IT) [2010] 38 SOT 426 (Mumbai ITAT). It is noted that in the above decision of Patni Computer Systems Ltd., the Hon’ble Pune Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held as under: “....every year is an independent unit, and it is for the assessee to examine whether or not, in…

ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN ETF(AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN MAURITIUS CO),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

…provisions of the act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to\nthe tax payer.\n6. 4. 6. The Ld.AR in support relied on following observations from the decision\nof Hon'ble Pune Bench in case of Patni Computers Systems Ltd., reported in\n(2008) 114 ITD 159\n8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in binding on us under Article\n141 of the Constitution of India. The prevailing legal position, therefore, is that\nonce an income is held to be taxable in a tax jurisdiction under a double taxation\navoidance agreement, and unless there is a specific mention that it can also be\ntaxed in the ot…

ISHARES CORE MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

…provisions of the act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to\nthe tax payer.\n6. 4. 6. The Ld.AR in support relied on following observations from the decision\nof Hon'ble Pune Bench in case of Patni Computers Systems Ltd., reported in\n(2008) 114 ITD 159\n8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in binding on us under Article\n141 of the Constitution of India. The prevailing legal position, therefore, is that\nonce an income is held to be taxable in a tax jurisdiction under a double taxation\n31\nITAs No. 2085, 2134, 2147, 2148, 2149, 2150, 2151, 2152, 2153, 2154/Mum/2025 32\navoidance a…

ISHARES MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES EMERGING MARKETS INDEX MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

…provisions of the act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to\nthe tax payer.\n6. 4. 6. The Ld.AR in support relied on following observations from the decision\nof Hon'ble Pune Bench in case of Patni Computers Systems Ltd., reported in\n(2008) 114 ITD 159\n8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in binding on us under Article\n141 of the Constitution of India. The prevailing legal position, therefore, is that\nonce an income is held to be taxable in a tax jurisdiction under a double taxation\navoidance agreement, and unless there is a specific mention that it can also be\ntaxed in the ot…

ISHARES INDIA 50 ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES INDIA MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

…provisions of the act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to\nthe tax payer.\n6. 4. 6. The Ld.AR in support relied on following observations from the decision\nof Hon'ble Pune Bench in case of Patni Computers Systems Ltd., reported in\n(2008) 114 ITD 159\n8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in binding on us under Article\n141 of the Constitution of India. The prevailing legal position, therefore, is that\nonce an income is held to be taxable in a tax jurisdiction under a double taxation\n32\nITAs No. 2085, 2134, 2147, 2148, 2149, 2150, 2151, 2152, 2153, 2154/Mum/2025 32\navoidance a…

SCHWAB EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY ETF ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

…provisions of the act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to\nthe tax payer.\n6. 4. 6. The Ld.AR in support relied on following observations from the decision\nof Hon'ble Pune Bench in case of Patni Computers Systems Ltd., reported in\n(2008) 114 ITD 159\n8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in binding on us under Article\n141 of the Constitution of India. The prevailing legal position, therefore, is that\nonce an income is held to be taxable in a tax jurisdiction under a double taxation\navoidance agreement, and unless there is a specific mention that it can also be\ntaxed in the ot…

ISHARES CORE MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCESSOR TO ISHARES CORE EMERGING MARKETS MAURITIUS COMPANY),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

…provisions of the act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to\nthe tax payer.\n6. 4. 6. The Ld.AR in support relied on following observations from the decision\nof Hon'ble Pune Bench in case of Patni Computers Systems Ltd., reported in\n(2008) 114 ITD 159\n8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in binding on us under Article\n141 of the Constitution of India. The prevailing legal position, therefore, is that\nonce an income is held to be taxable in a tax jurisdiction under a double taxation\navoidance agreement, and unless there is a specific mention that it can also be\ntaxed in the ot…

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…T v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan Chettiar [2008] 300 ITR 5, CIT v. Bank of\nIndia [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT v. VRSRM Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400\n(Mad.), CIT v. R M Muthiah [1993] 67 Taxman 222/202 ITR 508 (Karnataka).\nDy. CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo\nHospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574\n(Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni\nComputer Systenis Ltd. [2013] 33…

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…T v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan Chettiar [2008] 300 ITR 5, CIT v. Bank of\nIndia [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT v. VRSRM Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400\n(Mad.), CIT v. R M Muthiah [1993] 67 Taxman 222/202 ITR 508 (Karnataka).\nDy. CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo\nHospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574\n(Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni\nComputer Systenis Ltd. [2013] 33…

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…T v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan Chettiar [2008] 300 ITR 5, CIT v. Bank of\nIndia [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT v. VRSRM Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400\n(Mad.), CIT v. R M Muthiah [1993] 67 Taxman 222/202 ITR 508 (Karnataka).\nDy. CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo\nHospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574\n(Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni\nComputer Systems Ltd. [2013] 33 t…

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…T v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan Chettiar [2008] 300 ITR 5, CIT v. Bank of\nIndia [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT v. VRSRM Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400\n(Mad.), CIT v. R M Muthiah [1993] 67 Taxman 222/202 ITR 508 (Karnataka).\nDy. CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo\nHospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574\n(Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni\nComputer Systenis Ltd. [2013] 33…

PRASHANT KOTHARI,SINGAPORE vs. CIT A (57) MUMBAI, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS MUMBAI

In the result, the additional ground of\nappeal is allowed

…rovisions of the act shall apply to the extent they are\nmore beneficial to the tax payer.\n\n6. 4. 6. The Ld.AR in support relied on following observations from the\ndecision of Hon'ble Pune Bench in case of Patni Computers Systems Ltd.,\nreported in (2008) 114 ITD 159\n\n8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in binding on us under Article\n141 of the Constitution of India. The prevailing legal position, therefore, is that\nonce an income is held to be taxable in a tax jurisdiction under a double taxation\navoidance agreement, and unless there is a specific mention that it can also be\ntaxed in the…

BAY CAPITAL INDIA FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) 55, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

…provisions of the act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to\nthe tax payer.\n6. 4. 6. The Ld.AR in support relied on following observations from the decision\nof Hon'ble Pune Bench in case of Patni Computers Systems Ltd., reported in\n(2008) 114 ITD 159\n8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in binding on us under Article\n141 of the Constitution of India. The prevailing legal position, therefore, is that\nonce an income is held to be taxable in a tax jurisdiction under a double taxation\navoidance agreement, and unless there is a specific mention that it can also be\ntaxed in the ot…

MATRIX PARTNERS INDIA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC,MAURITIUS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

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

…r, the provisions of the act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to the tax payer. 6.4.6. The Ld.AR in support relied on following observations from the decision of Hon’ble Pune Bench in case of Patni Computers Systems Ltd., reported in (2008) 114 ITD 159 8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in binding on us under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The prevailing legal position, therefore, is that once an income is held to be taxable in a tax jurisdiction under a double taxation avoidance agreement, and unless there is a specific mention that it can also be taxed in the other…

GS STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (International Taxation) – 2(3)(2): [2021] 187 ITD 184 (Mumbai - Trib.)[24-09-2020] Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2010] 133 TTJ 792 (Mum) and DCIT vs. Patni Computers Systems Ltd.: (2008) 114 ITD 159 (Pune – Trib.) DCIT vs. Patni Computers Systems Ltd.: (2008) 114 ITD 159 (Pune – Trib.). 6. Per contra when the Departmental Representative relied upon the Final Assessment Order, dated 18/10/2023 as well as order dated 26/09/2023 passed by the DRP. Further, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the contention of the Appellant t…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

…t and by the honourable Supreme Court in 267 ITR 654 wherein the review petition was also dismissed in 300 ITR 5 ii. CIT versus VRSRM form (208 ITR 400) Madras) iii. CIT versus RM Muthiah(202 ITR 508 (Karnataka) iv. DCIT versus Patni computer systems limited (114 ITD 159 (Pune) v. Apollo hospitals Enterprises Ltd (53 SOT 103) (Chennai) vi. DCIT versus Turquoise Investment and Finance Limited (2008) ( 300 ITR 1) (SC) vii. Pooja Bhatt versus DCIT (2008) 26 SOT 574 (MU M) viii. DCIT versus Mideast India Ltd (2009) 28 SOT395 (Delhi) ix. DCIT versus SRO Ltd (2011) (47 SOT139) (MU M) x. Bank of India versus Deputy Comm…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

…by the honourable Supreme Court in 267 ITR 654 wherein the review petition was also dismissed in 300 ITR 5 ii. CIT versus VRSRM form (208 ITR 400) Madras) iii. CIT versus RM Muthiah(202 ITR 508 (Karnataka) iv. DCIT versus Patni computer systems limited (114 ITD 159 (Pune) v. Apollo hospitals Enterprises Ltd (53 SOT 103) (Chennai) vi. DCIT versus Turquoise Investment and Finance Limited (2008) ( 300 ITR 1) (SC) vii. Pooja Bhatt versus DCIT (2008) 26 SOT 574 (MU M) viii. DCIT versus Mideast India Ltd (2009) 28 SOT395 (Delhi) ix. DCIT versus SRO Ltd (2011) (47 SOT139) (MU M) x. Bank of India versus Deput…