CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…Government to define any term which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the tax treaty. As the Supreme Court has already interpreted the meaning of the phrase ‘may be taxed’ in the case of CIT v/s. PAVL Kulandagan Chettiar [267 ITR 654], the notification cannot give a meaning to ‘may be taxed’ which is inconsistent with the views of the Supreme Court.” 98. Without prejudice to the above argument made was that even if it is held that the above notification is applicable, the same can be said to be applicable prospectively (i.e. from assessment 2009-10 onwards) and, hence, is not…

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…Government to define any term which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the tax treaty. As the Supreme Court has already interpreted the meaning of the phrase ‘may be taxed’ in the case of CIT v/s. PAVL Kulandagan Chettiar [267 ITR 654], the notification cannot give a meaning to ‘may be taxed’ which is inconsistent with the views of the Supreme Court.” 98. Without prejudice to the above argument made was that even if it is held that the above notification is applicable, the same can be said to be applicable prospectively (i.e. from assessment 2009-10 onwards) and, hence, is not…

ASIA TODAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director of Income C/o. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, PAN: AABCA0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.12.…

EBAY SINGAPORE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

…is beneficial, in determining its liability to tax in India: Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v Azadi Bachao Andolan reported in 263 ITR 706 Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar reported in 267 ITR 654 5.9 The Ld.Sr.Counsel thus submitted that TRC is conclusive proof of assessee’s tax residency status in Singapore and thus the assessee is eligible for the beneficial provisions as per India India-Singapore DTAA. 11 ITA No.2378/Mum/2022; A.Y. 2019-20 Ebay Singapore Services Private Limited 5.10 The Ld.Sr.Counsel placed reliance on Article 13 und…

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…f the related tax treaty. Having so set out the correct position from an\nacademic point of view, we may hasten to add that there is indeed a judicial precedent\nfrom Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar [2004]\n137 Taxman 460/267 ITR 654 (SC)], which touches a different chord, but then, in the\nlight of subsequent legal amendments, the impact of this judicial precedent stands\nnullified. What is thus correct on the first principles and as per the text books, is also\nthe binding legal position.\n6. When we put our above understanding to the learned counsel in the beginning of\nhe…

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…f the related tax treaty. Having so set out the correct position from an\nacademic point of view, we may hasten to add that there is indeed a judicial precedent\nfrom Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar [2004]\n137 Taxman 460/267 ITR 654 (SC)], which touches a different chord, but then, in the\nlight of subsequent legal amendments, the impact of this judicial precedent stands\nnullified. What is thus correct on the first principles and as per the text books, is also\nthe binding legal position.\n6. When we put our above understanding to the learned counsel in the beginning of\nhe…

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…f the related tax treaty. Having so set out the correct position from an\nacademic point of view, we may hasten to add that there is indeed a judicial precedent\nfrom Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar [2004]\n137 Taxman 460/267 ITR 654 (SC)], which touches a different chord, but then, in the\nlight of subsequent legal amendments, the impact of this judicial precedent stands\nnullified. What is thus correct on the first principles and as per the text books, is also\nthe binding legal position.\n6. When we put our above understanding to the learned counsel in the beginning of\nhe…

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

…f the related tax treaty. Having so set out the correct position from an\nacademic point of view, we may hasten to add that there is indeed a judicial precedent\nfrom Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar [2004]\n137 Taxman 460/267 ITR 654 (SC)], which touches a different chord, but then, in the\nlight of subsequent legal amendments, the impact of this judicial precedent stands\nnullified. What is thus correct on the first principles and as per the text books, is also\nthe binding legal position.\n6. When we put our above understanding to the learned counsel in the beginning of\nhe…

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] &

…ranches are not liable to tax in India in terms of the relevant tax treaties and relying on the following judicial precedents:- ` i. PAVLKulandagan Chettiar (3 ITD 426) (special bench)upheld by the honourable High Court 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)…

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

…t liable to tax in India in terms of the relevant tax treaties and relying on the following judicial precedents:- Page | 104 i. PAVLKulandagan Chettiar (3 ITD 426) (special bench)upheld by the honourable High Court 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…