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

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

In the result the ground of appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhbank Of India A C I T - 2(1) C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan 8Th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Vs. M.K Road Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent D C I T - 2(1) Bank Of India Room No. 561, 5Th Floor C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road Vs. 8Th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Mumbai 400020 Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri C. Naresh Revenue By: Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2018 O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, Am These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-4, Mumbai Dated 27.11.2012 For A.Y. 2005-06 In The Matter Of Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member Bank of India A C I T - 2(1) C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan 8th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Vs. M.K Road BKC, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400051 PAN – AAACB0472C Appellant Respondent D C I T - 2(1) Bank of India Room No. 561, 5th Floor C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road Vs. 8th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Mumbai 400020 BKC, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 PAN – AAACB0472C Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri C. Naresh Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date of He…

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaldy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai V/S Bank Of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Respondent Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Bank Of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Appellant Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaacb0472C V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai

…(A) allowed the claim of the respondent based on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in appellant’s own case. The respondent submits that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by Supreme Court of India in CIT Vs PV.AL.Kulandagan Chettiar, reported in 267 ITR 654 which upheld the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of PV.AL.Kulandagan Chettiar Vs ITO (3 ITD 426). The ITAT had held that “So the argument that the agreement must be so interpreted as to retain the taxation powers with the Government of India in order to prevent fiscal evasion has only to be rejected. The agreement is mainly for avoidance of…

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

Appeal of the AO stands dismissed

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “एल मुंबई एल एल” ” ” ” खंडपीठ एल खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संदीप गोसांई ,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sandeep Gosain,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././ITA No. 3082/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 वष" DCIT2(1) Bank of India 8th Floor, Star House, Taxation Deptt. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai. BKC-Bandra (E),Mumbai-400 051. PAN: AAACB 0472 C (अपीलाथ" /Appella…

Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…which is professional in nature. No doubt the said payment falls in view of Article 15 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. However, in this regard it is also cleared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of CIT Vs. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 (SC) in which it is specifically held that the provision of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was having the overriding fact over normal provisions of the Act. The payment was certified by the Chartered Accountant by issuance of certificate to Mr. Arnold Allen, on account of his professional services. In this regard we found support of case dec…

Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…which is professional in nature. No doubt the said payment falls in view of Article 15 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. However, in this regard it is also cleared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of CIT Vs. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 (SC) in which it is specifically held that the provision of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was having the overriding fact over normal provisions of the Act. The payment was certified by the Chartered Accountant by issuance of certificate to Mr. Arnold Allen, on account of his professional services. In this regard we found support of case dec…

Capgemini Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Years: 2013-14 Capgemini Sa, Dcit(International Taxation)- Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, 2(1)(1), बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, Army & Navy Room No.1713, 17Th Floor, Vs. Building, Air India Building, 148, M.G. Road,Fort, Marine Drive, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcc5353J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri M.M. Golvala & Shri Raunak Vardhan राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Jasbir Chouchan Cit-Dr

…therefore, there was no necessity to consider the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), between India and France. This is a legal principle approved by the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 and in CIT vs. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654. ii. Without prejudice to the contention of the assessee that there was no income liable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961, it was contended, in the alternative, that the character of the income earned by the appellant was "business" income and, therefore, under the DTAA between India and France, the provisions of Article 7 were applicable. A…

M/S. Qad Europe B.V., Mumbai vs. DDIT (I.T) - 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…wo. If the provision of the Act on a particular issue is more beneficial to the assessee vis-a-vis that in the DTAA, then such provision of the Act shall apply and vice versa. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (2004) 267 ITR 654 (SC) has held that the provisions of sections 4 and 5 are subject to the contrary provision, if any, in DTAA. Such provisions of a DTAA shall prevail over the Act and work as an exception to or modification of sections 4 and 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bo…

M/S. Qad Europe B.V., Mumbai vs. DDIT (I.T) - 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…wo. If the provision of the Act on a particular issue is more beneficial to the assessee vis-a-vis that in the DTAA, then such provision of the Act shall apply and vice versa. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (2004) 267 ITR 654 (SC) has held that the provisions of sections 4 and 5 are subject to the contrary provision, if any, in DTAA. Such provisions of a DTAA shall prevail over the Act and work as an exception to or modification of sections 4 and 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bo…

DCIT (It)-4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Wns North America Inc, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground Nos.3 and 4 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…o. If the provision of the Act on a particular issue is more beneficial to the assessee vis-a-vis that in the DTAA, then such provision of the Act shall apply and vice versa. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar [(2004) 267 ITR 654 (SC)] has held that the provisions of sections 4 and 5 are subject to the contrary provision, if any, in DTAA. Such provisions of a DTAA shall prevail over the Act and work as an exception to or modification of sections 4 and 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [(2009) 310 I…

Asst DIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services (Uk) Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…o. If the provision of the Act on a particular issue is more beneficial to the assessee vis-a-vis that in the DTAA, then such provision of the Act shall apply and vice versa. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar [(2004) 267 ITR 654 (SC)] has held that the provisions of sections 4 and 5 are subject to the contrary provision, if any, in DTAA. Such provisions of a DTAA shall prevail over the Act and work as an exception to or modification of sections 4 and 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [(2009) 310 I…

Wns Global Services (Uk) Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…o. If the provision of the Act on a particular issue is more beneficial to the assessee vis-a-vis that in the DTAA, then such provision of the Act shall apply and vice versa. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar [(2004) 267 ITR 654 (SC)] has held that the provisions of sections 4 and 5 are subject to the contrary provision, if any, in DTAA. Such provisions of a DTAA shall prevail over the Act and work as an exception to or modification of sections 4 and 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [(2009) 310 I…

Shalini Seekond, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3877/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Mrs. Shalini Seekond Income Tax Officer - बनाम/ 6/15, Shyam Niwas, 3(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan V. Bhulabhai Desai Road, M K Road Mumbai-400026 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Anhps1305D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…f the assessee fiscal domicile is in Sri Lanka , then the capital gains must be deemed to have arisen in Sri-Lanka and is taxable only in Sri-Lanka. The assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.A.L.Kulandagan Chettiar , 267 ITR 654(SC) to contend that since immovable property is located in Sri-Lanka , the capital gains arising thereof could not be taxed in India.The assessee also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S.R.M. Firm, 208 ITR 400(Mad. HC). The assessee also placed reliance on circular no 333 , dated April 2, 1982 , (1982) 137 IT…