Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd.

300 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2008#3510 most cited
34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

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 115wasection 276section 57(i)section 115bbdsection 2(26)section 129(1)section 2(17)azadi bachao andolan

Judgments citing Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd.

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…ide India was held not liable to tax in India in the hands of the resident taxpayer, having regard to the provisions of the applicable Treaty with the country in which the income arose to the resident. In the case of DCIT v Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd: 300 ITR 1 (SC), before the Supreme Court, the assessee, an Indian resident company, had received dividend income from a Malaysian company. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower authorities that though the assessee was a resident of India (and its global income was taxable in India), the dividend income received from the Malaysian company was not…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…ide India was held not liable to tax in India in the hands of the resident taxpayer, having regard to the provisions of the applicable Treaty with the country in which the income arose to the resident. In the case of DCIT v Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd: 300 ITR 1 (SC), before the Supreme Court, the assessee, an Indian resident company, had received dividend income from a Malaysian company. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower authorities that though the assessee was a resident of India (and its global income was taxable in India), the dividend income received from the Malaysian company was not…

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2119/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…/202 ITR 508 (Karnataka).\nDy. CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo\nHospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574\n(Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni\nComputer Systenis Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble\nBombay Iligh Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra)\n5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by\ninviting our…

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…/202 ITR 508 (Karnataka).\nDy. CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo\nHospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574\n(Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni\nComputer Systenis Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble\nBombay Iligh Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra)\n5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by\ninviting our…

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2038/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…/202 ITR 508 (Karnataka).\nDy. CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo\nHospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574\n(Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni\nComputer Systems Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble\nBombay Iligh Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra)\n5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by\ninviting our a…

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2037/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…/202 ITR 508 (Karnataka).\nDy. CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo\nHospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574\n(Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni\nComputer Systenis Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble\nBombay Iligh Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra)\n5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by\ninviting our…

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…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 versus SRO Ltd (2011) (47 SOT139) (MU M) x. Bank of India versus Deputy Commissioner of income tax (2012) (27 taxmann.com 335) MU M) b) It was contested before him that the relevant tax treaty provided that such busines…

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

…00) 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 versus SRO Ltd (2011) (47 SOT139) (MU M) x. Bank of India versus Deputy Commissioner of income tax (2012) (27 taxmann.com 335) MU M) b) It was contested before him that the relevant tax treaty provided that such b…

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-

ITA 7760/DEL/2017[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

…come derived by the assessee being Indian resident from a company in Malaysia was not liable to be taxed in its hands in India under any of the provisions of the Act in view of Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, [2008] 300 ITR 1 (SC), 20.02.2008, Supreme Court of India (Relevant para: 9, Page 544-546 of case law compendium Volume 3.2) the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court following decision in Kulandayan Chettiar case. 3.15. In CIT v. Essar Oil Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 443 (Bombay), 16.10.2008, Bombay High Court (Relevant para: 3 & 4, Page 5…

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-

ITA 7759/DEL/2017[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

…come derived by the assessee being Indian resident from a company in Malaysia was not liable to be taxed in its hands in India under any of the provisions of the Act in view of Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, [2008] 300 ITR 1 (SC), 20.02.2008, Supreme Court of India (Relevant para: 9, Page 544-546 of case law compendium Volume 3.2) the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court following decision in Kulandayan Chettiar case. 3.15. In CIT v. Essar Oil Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 443 (Bombay), 16.10.2008, Bombay High Court (Relevant para: 3 & 4, Page 5…

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-

ITA 7758/DEL/2017[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

…come derived by the assessee being Indian resident from a company in Malaysia was not liable to be taxed in its hands in India under any of the provisions of the Act in view of Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, [2008] 300 ITR 1 (SC), 20.02.2008, Supreme Court of India (Relevant para: 9, Page 544-546 of case law compendium Volume 3.2) the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court following decision in Kulandayan Chettiar case. 3.15. In CIT v. Essar Oil Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 443 (Bombay), 16.10.2008, Bombay High Court (Relevant para: 3 & 4, Page 5…

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-

ITA 7757/DEL/2017[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

…come derived by the assessee being Indian resident from a company in Malaysia was not liable to be taxed in its hands in India under any of the provisions of the Act in view of Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, [2008] 300 ITR 1 (SC), 20.02.2008, Supreme Court of India (Relevant para: 9, Page 544-546 of case law compendium Volume 3.2) the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court following decision in Kulandayan Chettiar case. 3.15. In CIT v. Essar Oil Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 443 (Bombay), 16.10.2008, Bombay High Court (Relevant para: 3 & 4, Page 5…

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-

ITA 7756/DEL/2017[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

…come derived by the assessee being Indian resident from a company in Malaysia was not liable to be taxed in its hands in India under any of the provisions of the Act in view of Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, [2008] 300 ITR 1 (SC), 20.02.2008, Supreme Court of India (Relevant para: 9, Page 544-546 of case law compendium Volume 3.2) the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court following decision in Kulandayan Chettiar case. 3.15. In CIT v. Essar Oil Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 443 (Bombay), 16.10.2008, Bombay High Court (Relevant para: 3 & 4, Page 5…

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-

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

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

…come derived by the assessee being Indian resident from a company in Malaysia was not liable to be taxed in its hands in India under any of the provisions of the Act in view of Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, [2008] 300 ITR 1 (SC), 20.02.2008, Supreme Court of India (Relevant para: 9, Page 544-546 of case law compendium Volume 3.2) the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court following decision in Kulandayan Chettiar case. 3.15. In CIT v. Essar Oil Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 443 (Bombay), 16.10.2008, Bombay High Court (Relevant para: 3 & 4, Page 5…

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-

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

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

…come derived by the assessee being Indian resident from a company in Malaysia was not liable to be taxed in its hands in India under any of the provisions of the Act in view of Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, [2008] 300 ITR 1 (SC), 20.02.2008, Supreme Court of India (Relevant para: 9, Page 544-546 of case law compendium Volume 3.2) the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court following decision in Kulandayan Chettiar case. 3.15. In CIT v. Essar Oil Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 443 (Bombay), 16.10.2008, Bombay High Court (Relevant para: 3 & 4, Page 5…

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-

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

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

…come derived by the assessee being Indian resident from a company in Malaysia was not liable to be taxed in its hands in India under any of the provisions of the Act in view of Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, [2008] 300 ITR 1 (SC), 20.02.2008, Supreme Court of India (Relevant para: 9, Page 544-546 of case law compendium Volume 3.2) the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court following decision in Kulandayan Chettiar case. 3.15. In CIT v. Essar Oil Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 443 (Bombay), 16.10.2008, Bombay High Court (Relevant para: 3 & 4, Page 5…

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-

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

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

…come derived by the assessee being Indian resident from a company in Malaysia was not liable to be taxed in its hands in India under any of the provisions of the Act in view of Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, [2008] 300 ITR 1 (SC), 20.02.2008, Supreme Court of India (Relevant para: 9, Page 544-546 of case law compendium Volume 3.2) the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court following decision in Kulandayan Chettiar case. 3.15. In CIT v. Essar Oil Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 443 (Bombay), 16.10.2008, Bombay High Court (Relevant para: 3 & 4, Page 5…

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

…come derived by the assessee being Indian resident from a company in Malaysia was not liable to be taxed in its hands in India under any of the provisions of the Act in view of Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, [2008] 300 ITR 1 (SC), 20.02.2008, Supreme Court of India (Relevant para: 9, Page 544-546 of case law compendium Volume 3.2) the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court following decision in Kulandayan Chettiar case. 3.15. In CIT v. Essar Oil Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 443 (Bombay), 16.10.2008, Bombay High Court (Relevant para: 3 & 4, Page 5…

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

…come derived by the assessee being Indian resident from a company in Malaysia was not liable to be taxed in its hands in India under any of the provisions of the Act in view of Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, [2008] 300 ITR 1 (SC), 20.02.2008, Supreme Court of India (Relevant para: 9, Page 544-546 of case law compendium Volume 3.2) the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court following decision in Kulandayan Chettiar case. 3.15. In CIT v. Essar Oil Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 443 (Bombay), 16.10.2008, Bombay High Court (Relevant para: 3 & 4, Page 5…

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

…come derived by the assessee being Indian resident from a company in Malaysia was not liable to be taxed in its hands in India under any of the provisions of the Act in view of Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, [2008] 300 ITR 1 (SC), 20.02.2008, Supreme Court of India (Relevant para: 9, Page 544-546 of case law compendium Volume 3.2) the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court following decision in Kulandayan Chettiar case. 3.15. In CIT v. Essar Oil Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 443 (Bombay), 16.10.2008, Bombay High Court (Relevant para: 3 & 4, Page 5…

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2