Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. v. ACIT

G S Strategic Investments Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT International Tax Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…y (Mauritius) Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 82 (Mumbai - Trib.); Atyant Capital India Fund - I, ITA No. 8 GS Strategic Investments Limited 573/Mum/2024 (order dated 28.08.2025); Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. v. ACIT (International Tax) [2010] 133 TTJ 792 (Mumbai); and Mrs. Sikha Sanjaya Sharma v. DCIT [2022] 137 taxmann.com 214 (Ahmedabad - Trib.). 10. The Assessing Officer‟s reasoning, as emanating from the final assessment order, proceeds on the premise that the determination of income/loss has to be made for an assessment year in full; that total income is first to be computed under the Act b…

Gs Strategic Investments Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, International Tax Circle-2(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…against the Revenue by following decisions of the Tribunal: Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (International Taxation) – 2(3)(2): [2021] 187 ITD 184 (Mumbai - Trib.)[24-09-2020] Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2010] 133 TTJ 792 (Mum) and DCIT vs. Patni Computers Systems Ltd.: (2008) 114 ITD 159 (Pune – Trib.) DCIT vs. Patni Computers Systems Ltd.: (2008) 114 ITD 159 (Pune – Trib.). 6. Per contra when the Departmental Representative relied upon the Final Assessment Order, dated 18/10/2023 as well as order dated 26/09/2023 passed by the DRP. Further, the Learned Departme…

Bay Capital India Fund Limited, Mauritius vs. Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax, Air India, Nariman Point, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

…. The Assessee had placed reliance of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. (supra), DCIT vs. Patni Computers Systems Ltd.: (2008) 114 ITD 159 and Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2010] 133 TTJ 792 (Mum). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. (supra), wherein the other two decisions of the Tribunal were also considered and relied upon. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal reads as under: “11. On a peru…

Dy CIT (International Taxation), Mumbai vs. Swiss Finance Corporation (Mauritius) Ltd., Mauritius

…of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. (supra), DCIT vs. Patni Computers Systems Ltd.: (2008) 114 Assessment Year 2015-16 & 2017-18 ITD 159 and Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2010] 133 TTJ 792 (Mum). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. (supra), wherein the other two decisions of the Tribunal were also considered and relied upon. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal reads as under: “11. On a peru…

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

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

…quarely covered by the order of the IT AT, Mumbai in the case of Flagship Indian Investment Company (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. ADIT(I.T)- 11 I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 CO No. 41/Mum/2022 M/s J. P. Morgan India Investment Company Mauritius Limited 3(2), Mumbai (2010) 133 TTJ 792 (Mum)....""..As regards the reliance placed by the Id. D.R on the observations of the lower authorities that as the words "income" or "profits and gains" were to include losses also, therefore, now when Sec. 45 of the Act, by virtue of the India-Mauritius tax treaty was rendered unworkable in respect of "capital gains" derived by the assessee fro…

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

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

…ns earned by it during the year under consideration were not exigible to tax under Article 13 of the India-Mauritius tax treaty, the ld. A.R relied on the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 133 TTJ 792 (Mum). Also, support was drawn by the ld. A.R from the order of the ITAT, Pune in the case of DCIT Vs. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. (2008) 114 ITD 159 (Pune). In the said case, it was observed by the Tribunal that though under the DTAA between India and Japan the assessee‟s income from PE in Japan was taxable in Japan, but by virtue of Sec. 90(2)…