Flagship Indian Investment Co. Mauritius Ltd. v. ASSTT. DIT

38 SOT 426Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#11632 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 74Section 90(2)Section 143(3)Section 10(38)Section 13Section 13(4)Section 142(1)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 74carry forward of lossessection 90(2)azadi bachao andolantax treatyshort term capital gainsection 90section 45section 10(38)double taxationsection 24non-resident

Judgments citing Flagship Indian Investment Co. Mauritius Ltd. v. ASSTT. DIT

DCIT (IT) -3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JP MORGAN INDIA SMALLER COMPANIES FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1028/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 250Section 90(2)

…t to electing to be taxed under the provisions of the Act vis-à-vis the Treaty, the appellant has relied upon the case of DCIT v. Patni Computer Systems Limited (2008) 114 ITD 159 (Pune ITAT), Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd v. ADIT (IT) [2010] 38 SOT 426 (Mumbai ITAT). It is noted that in the above decision of Patni Computer Systems Ltd., the Hon’ble Pune Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held as under: “....every year is an independent unit, and it is for the assessee to examine whether or not, in the light of the applicable legal provisions and in light of the precise factual position, t…

ASIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION (MAURITIUS) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION)1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 2766/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(b)Section 69Section 74

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.2765/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Asia Investment Vs. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(2), Corporation (Mauritius) 12, 3rd Floor, Mittal Limited Court 22, Nariman 33, Edith Cavell Street, Point, Port Louis, Republic of Mumbai-400021 Mauritius Foreign PAN:AAFCA0513L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Rachna Agarwal Respondent by Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 31/01/…

ASIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION (MAURITIUS ) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 2765/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(b)Section 69Section 74

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.2765/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Asia Investment Vs. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(2), Corporation (Mauritius) 12, 3rd Floor, Mittal Limited Court 22, Nariman 33, Edith Cavell Street, Point, Port Louis, Republic of Mumbai-400021 Mauritius Foreign PAN:AAFCA0513L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Rachna Agarwal Respondent by Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 31/01/…

DCIT (IT) - 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROBECO INSTITUTIONEEL EMERGING MARKETS FONDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4059/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: None
Section 74

…he case of Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. vs. Assistant Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. vs. Assistant Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax [2010] 38 Director of Income Tax [2010] 38 SOT 426 (Mum) in which it was SOT 426 (Mum) in which it was Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Robeco Institutioneel Emerging 6 Markets Fonds & Robeco Q1 Markets Fonds & Institutional Emerging Markets Institutional Emerging Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund Enhanced Index Equities Fund ITA No. 4059/MUM/2024 & ITA No. 4058/MUM/2024 held that the assessee w…

DCIT (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROBECO QI INSTITUTIONAL EMERGING MARKETS ENHANCED INDEX EQUITIES FUND, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4058/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: None
Section 74

…he case of Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. vs. Assistant Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. vs. Assistant Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax [2010] 38 Director of Income Tax [2010] 38 SOT 426 (Mum) in which it was SOT 426 (Mum) in which it was Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Robeco Institutioneel Emerging 6 Markets Fonds & Robeco Q1 Markets Fonds & Institutional Emerging Markets Institutional Emerging Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund Enhanced Index Equities Fund ITA No. 4059/MUM/2024 & ITA No. 4058/MUM/2024 held that the assessee w…

TVF FUND LTD., MAURITIUS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4632/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 153Section 74Section 90(2)

…of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hariprasad Co.(P.) Limited reported in 199 ITR 118 2. Decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Kishore Bhai Bhikha Bhai Virani reported in (2014) 367 ITR 261 3. Flagship Indian Investment Co (Mauritius) Ltd (2010) 38 SOT 426 (Mum). 4. J.P.Morgan India Investment Company Mauritius Limited [ITA No.2382/Mum/2021] 5. Swiss Finance Corporation (Mauritius), Ltd reported in (2023) 146 Taxmann.com203. 2.4 The Ld. AO after considering the submissions of the assessee rejected the claim availed under the DTAA in respect of the gains 8 A.Y.2021-22 earned, which is the beneficial…

MORGAN STANLEY MAURITIUS COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3316/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/O S R B C & Associates Llp, 14Th 16Th Floor, Room No. 1615, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadcm 5927 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Moti LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Somogyan Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253

…No. 2382/Mum/2021 (Mumbai 2382/Mum/2021 (Mumbai - Trib.) and (v) Flagship Indian Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inti. Taxation)-3(2) [2010] 38 SOT 426 (Mumbai T 426 (Mumbai - Trib.). The assessee also referred to the CBDT Circular No. 22 of 1944 dated assessee also referred to the CBDT Circular No. 22 of 1944 dated assessee also referred to the CBDT Circular No. 22 of 1944 dated 29.07.1944 and submitted that the loss included in the total 29.07.1944 and submitted that the loss included in the to…

CREDIT SUISSE (SINGAPORE ) LIMITED ,SINGAPORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX), MUMBAI-2

In the result, appeals by the assessee for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 1008/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1007/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2016-17) आअसं. 1008/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2017-18) Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, C/O. Delloite Haskins & Sells Chartered Accountants Llp, 30Th Floor, Tower 3, One International Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaccc-7328-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Mumbai-2, 1706, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 038

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala Sr. Advocate with Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT DR and Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. AR
Section 263

…Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Montgomery Emerging Market Fund, 100 ITD 217 (Mum-S.B); (ii) Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd., 120 taxmann.com 23 (Mum); (iii) Flagship Indian Investment Co (Mauaritius) Ltd. 38 SOT 426 (Mum-Trib) The ld. Counsel for the assessee asserted that on merits of the issue, impugned order is contrary to the decisions of the Tribunal. 2.1. The ld. Counsel submitted that only for the reason that the assessment order does not contain a discussion on the issue, does not imply that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind on the issue…

CREDIT SUISSE (SINGAPORE ) LIMITED ,SINGAPORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX), MUMBAI-2

In the result, appeals by the assessee for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1007/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2016-17) आअसं. 1008/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2017-18) Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, C/O. Delloite Haskins & Sells Chartered Accountants Llp, 30Th Floor, Tower 3, One International Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaccc-7328-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Mumbai-2, 1706, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 038

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala Sr. Advocate with Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT DR and Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. AR
Section 263

…Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Montgomery Emerging Market Fund, 100 ITD 217 (Mum-S.B); (ii) Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd., 120 taxmann.com 23 (Mum); (iii) Flagship Indian Investment Co (Mauaritius) Ltd. 38 SOT 426 (Mum-Trib) The ld. Counsel for the assessee asserted that on merits of the issue, impugned order is contrary to the decisions of the Tribunal. 2.1. The ld. Counsel submitted that only for the reason that the assessment order does not contain a discussion on the issue, does not imply that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind on the issue…

Flagship Indian Investment Co. Mauritius Ltd. v. ASSTT. DIT (38 SOT 426) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax