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

300 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2008#3468 most cited

What is Indo- Malaysian DTAA. 3.14. In DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. authority for?

Dividend income derived by an Indian resident from a foreign company is not liable to be taxed in India if the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provides for such exemption.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Indo- Malaysian DTAA · DCIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd · 300 ITR 1 · dividend income · foreign company · DTAA exemption · taxation in India · section 90(3)

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.

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

…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 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

…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…

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

…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…

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)

…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] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra) 5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by inviting our attenti…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1953/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…tax payer. The Division Bench only refers to Article -26 ignoring all together the other Articles such as Article-19 and Article-23. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, 300 ITR 1, wherein the assessee an Indian resident company had received dividend income from a Malaysian Company, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the dividend income received from Malaysian Company was not liable to tax in India in view of Article –XI of India Malaysia Tax treaty, according to which dividend was taxable only in Malaysia. In principle Hon’bl…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1952/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…tax payer. The Division Bench only refers to Article -26 ignoring all together the other Articles such as Article-19 and Article-23. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, 300 ITR 1, wherein the assessee an Indian resident company had received dividend income from a Malaysian Company, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the dividend income received from Malaysian Company was not liable to tax in India in view of Article –XI of India Malaysia Tax treaty, according to which dividend was taxable only in Malaysia. In principle Hon’bl…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 521/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…tax payer. The Division Bench only refers to Article -26 ignoring all together the other Articles such as Article-19 and Article-23. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, 300 ITR 1, wherein the assessee an Indian resident company had received dividend income from a Malaysian Company, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the dividend income received from Malaysian Company was not liable to tax in India in view of Article –XI of India Malaysia Tax treaty, according to which dividend was taxable only in Malaysia. In principle Hon’bl…

Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-6, New Delhi

ITA 8968/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…tax payer. The Division Bench only refers to Article -26 ignoring all together the other Articles such as Article-19 and Article-23. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, 300 ITR 1, wherein the assessee an Indian resident company had received dividend income from a Malaysian Company, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the dividend income received from Malaysian Company was not liable to tax in India in view of Article –XI of India Malaysia Tax treaty, according to which dividend was taxable only in Malaysia. In principle Hon’bl…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 8009/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…tax payer. The Division Bench only refers to Article -26 ignoring all together the other Articles such as Article-19 and Article-23. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the case of DCIT vs. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd, 300 ITR 1, wherein the assessee an Indian resident company had received dividend income from a Malaysian Company, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the dividend income received from Malaysian Company was not liable to tax in India in view of Article –XI of India Malaysia Tax treaty, according to which dividend was taxable only in Malaysia. In principle Hon’bl…

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)

…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] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra) 5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by inviting our attenti…

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)

….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 High Court) and Apollo Enterprises Limited s DCIT [ 23 taxmann.com 168 (Chennai- Tribunal)]. [5] Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by inviting our attentio…

DCIT (Exemptions), Chennai vs. Sri Vekkaliamman Educational & Charitable Trust, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2722/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2722/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Sri Vekkaliamman Educational Income Tax, Vs. & Charitable Trust, (Exemptions) No.10, East Mada Church Street, Chennai Circle, Royapuram, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 013. [Pan Aafts 7863Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. G. Seetharaman, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 32

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2722/CHNY/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2011-2012. Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Sri Vekkaliamman Educational Income Tax, Vs. & Charitable Trust, (Exemptions) No.10, East Mada Church Street, Chennai Circle, Royapuram, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 013. [PAN AAFTS 7863Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Sana…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Real Strips Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2255/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2255/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dcit, M/S. Real Strips Ltd., बनाम/ Cir – 3(1)(2), 401-402, Florence, Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp. Ashram Road, Post Office, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr 2893 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. D. Shah, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Shah, A.R

…on account of alleged suppressed sales on account of alleged unaccounted production 1. The statement recorded on oath during the course of proceeding under section 133 A of the Act does not have evidentiary value in the assessment- (a) C1T Vs S. Khader Khan (300 ITR 1 57)(Mad). Said Judgment has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Refer ITR 352 1TR 480(2013) (b) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.R. Mctrani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 287 ITR 209 (SC). 2. The Impugned Assessment is for AY 2012-13 and statement recorded are dated 21.1.2015 and therefore the statements cannot be relied upon for th…

DCIT, Circle - 6 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Uco Bank, Kolkata

ITA No.1329/K/08

ITA 197/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri D.S Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjana, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…me would be governed only by the old treaty entered into on 25.10.1976. We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to address the taxability of foreign dividend income in the case of DCIT vs Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd & Ors reported in (2008) 300 ITR 1 (SC) , wherein it was held that dividend income derived by the assessee from a company in Malaysia is not liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee in India by virtue of provisions of DTAA between India and Malaysia. Respectfully following the said judicial precedent and in view of the fact that the new treaty is not applicable for Asst year…