Kulandayan Chettiar v. ITO

3 ITD 426Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1983#4182 most cited

What is Kulandayan Chettiar v. ITO authority for?

Branches of a company in foreign countries such as UAE and Qatar do not attract tax liability in India when they form a Permanent Establishment (PE), provided that the relevant tax treaties are applied. This principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kulandayan Chettiar v. ITO · 3 ITD 426 · Permanent Establishment · PE · tax treaties · DTAA · foreign branches · tax liability in India · section 132 · section 142(1) · section 153A · section 234B · section 271(1)(c) · section 69

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 276section 2(26)section 129(1)section 2(17)section 153b(1)section 5(c)section 43dazadi bachao andolan

Judgments citing Kulandayan Chettiar v. ITO

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

…ia has been interpreted by courts in a catena of judgments explained infra. ITA Nos.6743 & 6744/Del/2017 & 3623 to 3627/DEL/2016 And ITA Nos. 6767 ,6769,7756 to 7759,7760/Del/2017 Rajinder Kumar 8.7. P.V. A.L. Kulandayan Chettiar v. Income Tax Officer, [1983] 3 ITD 426 (MAD.) (SB), 27.12.1982, ITAT Madras (Special Bench) (Relevant para: 8, Page 451-454 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, it was held that the word 'maybe' in Article 6(1) of the India- Malaysia DTAA agreement empowered only the Malaysian Government to tax income from properties situated in Malaysia and if India could also levy tax on…

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)

…the assessee was forming PE should not be liable to tax in India based on relevant tax treaties". The assessee has also relied upon a large number of judicial precedents, including the judicial precedents in the cases of PAVL Kulandayan Chettiar v. ITO [1983] 3 ITD 426 (Mad.) (SB), which has been upheld right upto Hon'ble Supreme Court P.V.A.L. Kulandayan Chettiar (supra) and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court CIT v. P.V.A.L. kulandayan Chettiar [2008] 300 ITR 5, CIT v. Bank of India [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT v. VRSRM Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400 (Mad.), CIT v. R M Muthiah [1993]…

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)

…the assessee was forming PE should not be liable to tax in India based on relevant tax treaties". The assessee has also relied upon a large number of judicial precedents, including the judicial precedents in the cases of PAVL Kulandayan Chettiar v. ITO [1983] 3 ITD 426 (Mad.) (SB), which has been upheld right upto Hon'ble Supreme Court P.V.A.L. Kulandayan Chettiar (supra) and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court CIT v. P.V.A.L. kulandayan Chettiar [2008] 300 ITR 5, CIT v. Bank of India [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT v. VRSRM Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400 (Mad.), CIT v. R M Muthiah [1993]…

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6273/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am Dy.Commissioner Of Income Vs. State Bank Of India Tax Financial Reporting & Circle-2(2)(1) Taxation Department 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Mumbai State Bank Bhavan Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs8577K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

…e ground Nos.2&3 reproduced supra, the assessee submitted that income of its foreign branches is not liable to tax in India. The assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions before the ld. AO:- • Special Bench of ITAT in PAVL Kulandagan Chettiar (3 ITD 426); view upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court in 267 1TR 654 [review petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed (300 ITR 5)] • GIT v. VRSRM Firm (208 ITR 401) (Madras High Court) • CTT V. R.M. Muthiah (202 ITR 508) (Karnataka High Court) • DCITv. Paini Computer Systems Limited (2007) (114 ITD 159) (Pune Tribunal) • DOT v. Torqouise Investm…

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)

…Qatar where the assessee was forming PE should not be liable to tax in India based on relevant tax treaties”. The assessee has also relied upon a large number of judicial precedents, including the judicial precedents in the cases of PAVL Kulandagan Chettiar [3 ITD 426 (SB)], which has been upheld right upto Hon’ble Supreme Court (267 ITR 654) and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court (300 ITR 5), CIT Vs Bank of India [64 taxmann.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)], Apoll…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 1013/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhbank Of India A C I T - 2(1) C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan 8Th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Vs. M.K Road Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent D C I T - 2(1) Bank Of India Room No. 561, 5Th Floor C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road Vs. 8Th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Mumbai 400020 Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri C. Naresh Revenue By: Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2018 O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, Am These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-4, Mumbai Dated 27.11.2012 For A.Y. 2005-06 In The Matter Of Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…The respondent submits that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by Supreme Court of India in CIT Vs PV.AL.Kulandagan Chettiar, reported in 267 ITR 654 which upheld the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of PV.AL.Kulandagan Chettiar Vs ITO (3 ITD 426). The ITAT had held that “So the argument that the agreement must be so interpreted as to retain the taxation powers with the Government of India in order to prevent fiscal evasion has only to be rejected. The agreement is mainly for avoidance of double taxation. That means the income shall not be taxed at the same time in both the countries in Ind…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4357/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaldy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai V/S Bank Of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Respondent Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Bank Of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Appellant Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaacb0472C V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava
Section 3Section 36(1)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai v/s Bank of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Respondent Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 PAN – AAACB0472C Bank of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Appellant Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 PAN – AAACB0472C v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai Revenue by : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava Assessee by : Shri C. Naresh Date of…

ACIT -2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of India, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 3082/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…The respondent submits that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by Supreme Court of India in CIT Vs PV.AL.Kulandagan Chettiar, reported in 267 ITR 654 which upheld the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of PV.AL.Kulandagan Chettiar Vs ITO (3 ITD 426). The ITAT had held that “So the argument that the agreement must be so interpreted as to retain the taxation powers with the Government of India in order to prevent fiscal evasion has only to be rejected. The agreement is mainly for avoidance of double taxation. That means the income shall not be taxed at the same time in both the countries in Ind…