Kulandayan Chettiar v. ITO

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…assessee was forming PE should not be liable to tax in\nIndia based on relevant tax treaties\". The assessee has also relied upon a large\nnumber of judicial precedents, including the judicial precedents in the cases of\nPAVL Kulandayan Chettiar v. ITO [1983] 3 ITD 426 (Μad.) (SB), which has\nbeen upheld right upto Hon'ble Supreme Court P.V.A.L. Kulandayan Chettiar\n(supra) and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt CIT v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan Chettiar [2008] 300 ITR 5, CIT v. Bank of\nIndia [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT v. VRSRM Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400\n(Mad.), CIT v. R M Muthiah [1…

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…assessee was forming PE should not be liable to tax in\nIndia based on relevant tax treaties\". The assessee has also relied upon a large\nnumber of judicial precedents, including the judicial precedents in the cases of\nPAVL Kulandayan Chettiar v. ITO [1983] 3 ITD 426 (Μad.) (SB), which has\nbeen upheld right upto Hon'ble Supreme Court P.V.A.L. Kulandayan Chettiar\n(supra) and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt CIT v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan Chettiar [2008] 300 ITR 5, CIT v. Bank of\nIndia [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT v. VRSRM Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400\n(Mad.), CIT v. R M Muthiah [1…

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…assessee was forming PE should not be liable to tax in\nIndia based on relevant tax treaties". The assessee has also relied upon a large\nnumber of judicial precedents, including the judicial precedents in the cases of\nPAVL Kulandayan Chettiar v. ITO [1983] 3 ITD 426 (Μad.) (SB), which has\nbeen upheld right upto Hon'ble Supreme Court P.V.A.L. Kulandayan Chettiar\n(supra) and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt CIT v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan Chettiar [2008] 300 ITR 5, CIT v. Bank of\nIndia [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT v. VRSRM Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400\n(Mad.), CIT v. R M Muthiah [1…

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

…assessee was forming PE should not be liable to tax in\nIndia based on relevant tax treaties\". The assessee has also relied upon a large\nnumber of judicial precedents, including the judicial precedents in the cases of\nPAVL Kulandayan Chettiar v. ITO [1983] 3 ITD 426 (Μad.) (SB), which has\nbeen upheld right upto Hon'ble Supreme Court P.V.A.L. Kulandayan Chettiar\n(supra) and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt CIT v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan Chettiar [2008] 300 ITR 5, CIT v. Bank of\nIndia [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT v. VRSRM Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400\n(Mad.), CIT v. R M Muthiah [1…

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

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

…` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM A.Y.2006-07 [ by Assessee] & ITA No. 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 A.Y.2007-08 [ By AO] & [By Assessee] Vs. State Bank of India The Additional 3rd Floor, Commissionerof Income tax Corporate Centre Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Madam Cama Road Room No 545, Aykar Bhavan Nariman Point Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulkadir Jawad Wala Revenue by Shri P C Chhhotaray Special Counsel Shri Dr Kishor Dhule…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

…the resident assessee, state bank of India, as such profits are earned by such foreign branches are not liable to tax in India in terms of the relevant tax treaties and relying on the following judicial precedents:- Page | 104 i. PAVLKulandagan Chettiar (3 ITD 426) (special bench)upheld by the honourable High Court and by the honourable Supreme Court in 267 ITR 654 wherein the review petition was also dismissed in 300 ITR 5 ii. CIT versus VRSRM form (208 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 hos…