How many judgments cite (5)) 3.12. DCIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd.?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite (5)) 3.12. DCIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. (114 ITD 159), spanning 2020 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does (5)) 3.12. DCIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 234B, Section 142(1), Section 132, Section 153A, Section 271(1)(c).

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

114 ITD 159Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#2610 most cited

What is (5)) 3.12. DCIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. authority for?

An assessee has the option to choose between the provisions of the Income-tax Act and a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) in any given year, and the non-election of DTAA benefits in one year does not prevent claiming them in subsequent years.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. · 114 ITD 159 · section 90(3) · DTAA benefits · Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement · option to choose Act or DTAA · treaty cannot be thrust upon assessee · claiming DTAA benefits in subsequent years · year-on-year DTAA election · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234B Section 142(1)Section 132 Section 153A Section 271(1)(c)Section 69 Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 90(3)section 65(b)section 70(2)section 65b(4)section 115ad section 163 section 276 dtaa benefit section 74 section 2(26)section 129(1)section 2(45)

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

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1767/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Section 115Section 11JSection 143(3)Section 90Section 90(3)

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

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6273/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am Dy.Commissioner Of Income Vs. State Bank Of India Tax Financial Reporting & Circle-2(2)(1) Taxation Department 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Mumbai State Bank Bhavan Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs8577K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

…Supreme Court in 267 1TR 654 [review petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed (300 ITR 5)] • GIT v. VRSRM Firm (208 ITR 401) (Madras High Court) • CTT V. R.M. Muthiah (202 ITR 508) (Karnataka High Court) • DCITv. Paini Computer Systems Limited (2007) (114 ITD 159) (Pune Tribunal) • DOT v. Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2008) (300IR 1) (Supreme Court) • Pooja Bhatt v. DOT (2008) (26 SOT 574) (Mum) • DOT v. Mideast India Ltd. (2009) (28 SOT 395) (Del) • DOT v. Essar Oil Limited (2011) (47 SOT 139) (Mum) • CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Limited (ITA No. 1148 of 2012) (Bombay 6 State Bank of India Hi…

Goldman Sachs Investments ( Mauritius ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2201/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldman Sachs Investments Deputy Commissioner Of (Mauritius) Limited, Income Tax, (International Taxation) -2(3)(2), Room No. 1702, 17Th Floor, C/O M/S Srbc & Associates Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Point, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 021 Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400 028

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari, Senior D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234C

…see during one year does not opt for the tax treaty, it would not be precluded from availing the benefits of the said treaty in the subsequent years. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the order of the ITAT, Pune in DCIT Vs. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. (2008) 114 ITD 159 (Pune). We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the A.O/DRP, who as noticed by us hereinabove had sought adjustment of the b/forward STCL against the exempt short term and long term capital gains earned by the assessee during the year in question, thus „set aside‟ the…

Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, RG- 13 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 155/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)

…67 ITR 654) and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court (300 ITR 5), CIT Vs Bank of India [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT Vs VRSRM Firm (208 ITR 401), CIT Vs R M Muthiah [202 ITR 508 (Karnataka)], DCIT Vs Patni Computer Systems Ltd [114 ITD 159 (Pune)], Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Limited [53 SOT 103 (Chennai)], DCIT Vs Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. (300 ITR 1), Pooja Bhatt Vs DCIT (26 SOT 574), DCIT Vs Mideast India Ltd [28 SOT 395 (Del)], CIT Vs Patni Computer Systems Limited (ITA No. 1148 of 2012; Hon‟ble Bombay High Court) and Apollo Enterprises Limited s DCIT [ 23 taxmann.c…