CIT v. R.M. Muthalah

202 ITR 508High Court1993#3456 most cited

What is CIT v. R.M. Muthalah authority for?

A Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) allocating taxation rights to one country for income from immovable property situated within its territory implicitly excludes the other country from taxing the same income, thereby upholding the object of avoiding double taxation.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. R.M. Muthalah · 202 ITR 508 · DTAA · Article 6(1) · India-Malaysia DTAA · avoidance of double taxation · immovable property tax · exclusive taxing rights · Malaysian government · Indian government

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 163Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 90(3)section 65(b)section 65b(4)section 163section 276section 2(26)section 129(1)section 2(17)section 153b(1)section 5(c)azadi bachao andolansection 43d

Judgments citing CIT v. R.M. Muthalah

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3627/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…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, New Delhi

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

ITA 3626/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…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, New Delhi

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

ITA 3625/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…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, New Delhi

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

ITA 3624/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…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, New Delhi

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

ITA 3623/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi

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

ITA 3368/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…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…

Smt. Irvind Kaur Gujral, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 5(1)(c)Section 90(3)

…and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court 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…

ACIT (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.P.Morgan Indian Investment Company Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue becomes infructuous as dismissed

ITA 2382/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-3(1)(1), M/S J. P. Morgan India R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air Investment Company India Building, Nariman Mauritius Limited, बनाम/ Point, Mumbai-400 021 C/O- Srb & Associates Llp, Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacf0626J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 41/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S J. P. Morgan India Acit-3(1)(1), Investment Company R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air India Mauritius Limited, Building, Nariman Point, बनाम/ C/O- Srb & Associates Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 18.05.2022 & 23.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144C

…y the tax treaty that it has entered. He has also tried to justify the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC). He has further placed reliance decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of R. M. Muthiah (202 ITR 508) and contended that the tax liability has to be calculated first as per the Income Tax Act and if there is tax liability as per the Act then DTAA must be resorted for negating or reducing the tax liability. If 16 I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 CO No. 41/Mum/2022 M/s J. P. Morgan India Investment Company Mauritius Limited there is no tax liability resor…

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)

…and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court 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]…

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)

…h of ITAT in PAVL Kulandagan Chettiar (3 ITD 426); view upheld by the High Court and 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…

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)

…B)], which has been upheld right upto Hon’ble Supreme Court (267 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 Hi…

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

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

ITA 3877/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

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)

For Respondent: Shri T.Roumen Paite CIT
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 6Section 90

…n’ble Madras High Court in the case of S.R.M. Firm(supra) which decision has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulandagan Chettiar’s (supra) case. The view is supported by decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. R.M.Muthaiah , 202 ITR 508(Kar. HC) , which decision has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 706(SC). Thus, it was submitted whether the assessee is considered as resident of India or that of Sri-Lanka under DTAA , ITA 3877/Mum/2012 8 the capital gains on the sale of the immovable property located in Sri-Lanka by the assessee…

M/S Wipro Ltd vs. ITO

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and S

ITA 1544/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Manjunatha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajashekar, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 139ASection 156Section 200ASection 206ASection 90(2)Section 90A(2)

…ing tax at source from non- resident deductees. 4. The CIT (Appeals) has erred in not following the clarification of the Board issued vide Circular No.333 dt.2.4.2982 and the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. R.M. Muthaiah (1993) 202 ITR 508. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not holding that the furnishing of PAN under section 206AA would arise only to a deductee being a person required to apply for PAN under Section 139A, which is not applicable in the appellant’s case since the deductees are non-residents, who were not required to apply for PAN during the relevant period. 6. A…

Director of Income Tax vs. Infrasoft Ltd

ITA/1034/2009HC Delhi22 Nov 2013
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 4Section 9(1)(vi)

…======================================================================= ITA 1034/2009 Page 1 of 174 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 3rd July, 2013 Judgment pronounced on:22nd November, 2013 + ITA 1034/2009 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate. versus INFRASOFT LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ajay Vohra with Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACH…