CIT v. R.M. Muthalah

ITA 2118/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

…and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court CIT v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan 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]…

ACIT, Circle -3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. बनाम Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi

ITA 2038/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

…and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court CIT v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan 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]…

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-(Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi

ITA 2037/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

…and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court CIT v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan 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]…

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. Union Bank Of India, बनाम | Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

…and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court CIT v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan 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]…

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] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…n 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) ( 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 vers…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

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

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…tiar (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) ( 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. DC…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd

ITA/334/2022HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

ITA/206/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

…ion applicable to the contracting States‖. Otherwise, the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement will have no meaning at all. [See also in this connection Leonhardt Andra Und Partner, GmbH v. CIT, (2001) 249 ITR 418 (Cal)] 25. In CIT v. R.M. Muthaiah [(1993) 202 ITR 508 (Kant)] the Karnataka High Court was concerned with DTAT between the Government of India and the Government of Malaysia. The High Court held that under the terms of the Agreement, if there was a recognition of the power of taxation with the Malaysian Government, by implication it takes away the corresponding power of the Indian Government.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

ITA/61/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

…ion applicable to the contracting States‖. Otherwise, the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement will have no meaning at all. [See also in this connection Leonhardt Andra Und Partner, GmbH v. CIT, (2001) 249 ITR 418 (Cal)] 25. In CIT v. R.M. Muthaiah [(1993) 202 ITR 508 (Kant)] the Karnataka High Court was concerned with DTAT between the Government of India and the Government of Malaysia. The High Court held that under the terms of the Agreement, if there was a recognition of the power of taxation with the Malaysian Government, by implication it takes away the corresponding power of the Indian Government.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

ITA/55/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

…ion applicable to the contracting States‖. Otherwise, the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement will have no meaning at all. [See also in this connection Leonhardt Andra Und Partner, GmbH v. CIT, (2001) 249 ITR 418 (Cal)] 25. In CIT v. R.M. Muthaiah [(1993) 202 ITR 508 (Kant)] the Karnataka High Court was concerned with DTAT between the Government of India and the Government of Malaysia. The High Court held that under the terms of the Agreement, if there was a recognition of the power of taxation with the Malaysian Government, by implication it takes away the corresponding power of the Indian Government.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

ITA 7760/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

…ion applicable to the contracting States‖. Otherwise, the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement will have no meaning at all. [See also in this connection Leonhardt Andra Und Partner, GmbH v. CIT, (2001) 249 ITR 418 (Cal)] 25. In CIT v. R.M. Muthaiah [(1993) 202 ITR 508 (Kant)] the Karnataka High Court was concerned with DTAT between the Government of India and the Government of Malaysia. The High Court held that under the terms of the Agreement, if there was a recognition of the power of taxation with the Malaysian Government, by implication it takes away the corresponding power of the Indian Government.…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

ITA 7759/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

…ysian Government to tax income from properties situated in Malaysia and if India could also levy tax on the same income then it will only frustrate the object of avoidance of double taxation with which the agreement was made. 3.8. CIT v. R.M. Muthalah, [1993] 202 ITR 508 (Karnataka), 11.12.1992, Karnataka High Court (Relevant para: 7, Page 455-457 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the word 'may be' used in Article 6(1) of India- Malaysia DTAA was interpreted to mean that the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Governm…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

ITA 7758/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

…ysian Government to tax income from properties situated in Malaysia and if India could also levy tax on the same income then it will only frustrate the object of avoidance of double taxation with which the agreement was made. 3.8. CIT v. R.M. Muthalah, [1993] 202 ITR 508 (Karnataka), 11.12.1992, Karnataka High Court (Relevant para: 7, Page 455-457 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the word 'may be' used in Article 6(1) of India- Malaysia DTAA was interpreted to mean that the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Governm…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

ITA 7757/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

…ysian Government to tax income from properties situated in Malaysia and if India could also levy tax on the same income then it will only frustrate the object of avoidance of double taxation with which the agreement was made. 3.8. CIT v. R.M. Muthalah, [1993] 202 ITR 508 (Karnataka), 11.12.1992, Karnataka High Court (Relevant para: 7, Page 455-457 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the word 'may be' used in Article 6(1) of India- Malaysia DTAA was interpreted to mean that the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Governm…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

ITA 7756/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

…ysian Government to tax income from properties situated in Malaysia and if India could also levy tax on the same income then it will only frustrate the object of avoidance of double taxation with which the agreement was made. 3.8. CIT v. R.M. Muthalah, [1993] 202 ITR 508 (Karnataka), 11.12.1992, Karnataka High Court (Relevant para: 7, Page 455-457 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the word 'may be' used in Article 6(1) of India- Malaysia DTAA was interpreted to mean that the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Governm…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

ITA 6769/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

…ysian Government to tax income from properties situated in Malaysia and if India could also levy tax on the same income then it will only frustrate the object of avoidance of double taxation with which the agreement was made. 3.8. CIT v. R.M. Muthalah, [1993] 202 ITR 508 (Karnataka), 11.12.1992, Karnataka High Court (Relevant para: 7, Page 455-457 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the word 'may be' used in Article 6(1) of India- Malaysia DTAA was interpreted to mean that the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Governm…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

ITA 6767/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

…ysian Government to tax income from properties situated in Malaysia and if India could also levy tax on the same income then it will only frustrate the object of avoidance of double taxation with which the agreement was made. 3.8. CIT v. R.M. Muthalah, [1993] 202 ITR 508 (Karnataka), 11.12.1992, Karnataka High Court (Relevant para: 7, Page 455-457 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the word 'may be' used in Article 6(1) of India- Malaysia DTAA was interpreted to mean that the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Governm…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

ITA 6744/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

…ysian Government to tax income from properties situated in Malaysia and if India could also levy tax on the same income then it will only frustrate the object of avoidance of double taxation with which the agreement was made. 3.8. CIT v. R.M. Muthalah, [1993] 202 ITR 508 (Karnataka), 11.12.1992, Karnataka High Court (Relevant para: 7, Page 455-457 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the word 'may be' used in Article 6(1) of India- Malaysia DTAA was interpreted to mean that the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Governm…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

ITA 6743/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

…ysian Government to tax income from properties situated in Malaysia and if India could also levy tax on the same income then it will only frustrate the object of avoidance of double taxation with which the agreement was made. 3.8. CIT v. R.M. Muthalah, [1993] 202 ITR 508 (Karnataka), 11.12.1992, Karnataka High Court (Relevant para: 7, Page 455-457 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the word 'may be' used in Article 6(1) of India- Malaysia DTAA was interpreted to mean that the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Governm…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR