Visheshwar Singh v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC), Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. v. CIT (271 ITR 1)

DY CIT-IT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ARC LINE, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7347/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 7347/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14)

…o be "dependant" and there can be no question of creation of an Agency PE. While arriving at its decision, Mumbai ITAT in B4U also relied on the decisions of the AAR in Morgan Stanley & Co. (272 ITR 416) (Pg 10 of 134U decision), Fidelity Advisor Series VIII (271 ITR 1) (Pg 11 of B4U decision). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Delhi HC in Rolls Royce Singapore (P) Ltd. v. ADIT (347 ITR 192) (Pg 12 of B4U decision) where the HC held that an agency PE would not exist if the assessee principal could show that it was not the sole client of the agent and that the activities of the agent were not devoted…

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv

Section 143Section 4

…ment was made by Dabur in the corporate company as a capital contribution in the form of shares and no money was advanced to CUIH. Under the law, shareholders and company are separate entity as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Bacha F. Guzdar vs. CIT in 271 ITR 1. 8. In the case of CIT vs. ArunaDua in 186 ITR 494, the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court held that if the parties to the agreement have understood the agreement in a certain way and have acted upon that agreement, it is not open to the AO to give another interpretation and tax the assessee on a hypothetical amount. In the instant case, Dabur and CUIH…

ARC LINE (MAURITIUS),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2332/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Arc Line (Mauritius) Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 3C Runwal&Omkar Income Tax (International Vs. Esquare Sion Chunabhatti, Taxation)-1(1)(2), Junction, Sion – Trombay Mumbai. Road, Sion (E), Mumbai- 400022. Pan No. Aadca0878J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dharsh KothariFor Respondent: Mr. NishantSamaiya, DR

Section 143(3)Section 44B

…re can be no question of creation of an Agency PE. While arriving at its ARC Line (Mauritius) 12 decision, Mumbai ITAT in B4U also relied on the decisions of the AAR in Morgan Stanley & Co. (272 ITR 416) (Pg 10 of 134U decision), Fidelity Advisor Series VIII (271 ITR 1) (Pg 11 of B4U decision). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Delhi HC in Rolls Royce Singapore (P) Ltd. v. ADIT (347 ITR 192) (Pg 12 of B4U decision) where the HC held that an agency PE would not exist if the assessee principal could show that it was not the sole client of the agent and that the activities of the agent were not devoted…

DDIT (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ARC LINE MAURITIUS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5492/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

…o be "dependant" and there can be no question of creation of an Agency PE. While arriving at its decision, Mumbai ITAT in B4U also relied on the decisions of the AAR in Morgan Stanley & Co. (272 ITR 416) (Pg 10 of 134U decision), Fidelity Advisor Series VIII (271 ITR 1) (Pg 11 of B4U decision). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Delhi HC in Rolls Royce Singapore (P) Ltd. v. ADIT (347 ITR 192) (Pg 12 of B4U decision) where the HC held that an agency PE would not exist if the assessee principal could show that it was not the sole client of the agent and that the activities of the agent were not devoted…

BAY LINES ( MAURITIUS),MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. Therefore this ground raised by the assessee in AY 2011-12 stands allowed

ITA 6716/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1181/Mum/2002 (Ay 1998-99) Bay Lines (Mauritiues) Adit (It) – 3(2) C/O-Freight Connection Mumbai - 400020 India Pvt. Ltd. 3-C, Omkar Esquare, Sion – बनाम/ Chunabhatti Juction, Vs. Sion Trombay Rd, Sion (E) Mumbai-400022 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcb5853G & Cross Objection No. 32/Mum/2010 (Ay 1998-99)

For Appellant: Sh. M. V. Rajguru, DRFor Respondent: Sh. S. E. Dastur / Harsh

…o be "dependant" and there can be no question of creation of an Agency PE. While arriving at its decision, Mumbai ITAT in B4U also relied on the decisions of the AAR in Morgan Stanley & Co. (272 ITR 416) (Pg 10 of 134U decision), Fidelity Advisor Series VIII (271 ITR 1) (Pg 11 of B4U decision). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Delhi HC in Rolls Royce Singapore (P) Ltd. v. ADIT (347 ITR 192) (Pg 12 of B4U decision) where the HC held that an agency PE would not exist if the assessee principal could show that it was not the sole client of the agent and that the activities of the agent were not devoted…

GE ASSET MANAGEMENT INCORPORATEDE A/C. GENERAL ELECTRIC PENSION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6853/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 6853/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ge Asset Management Ofice Of The Dy. Director Of बनाम/ Incorporated A/C. General Income-Tax(International Vs. Electric Pension Trust, Taxation), Range 3(1), C/O Pricewaterhouse R. No. 136, Scindia House, Coopers Pvt. Ltd., N.M. Road, Ballard Estate, Pwc House, Plot 18/A, Mumbai-400 038 Guru Nanak Road, Stational Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatg 3740P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri S.E. Dastur Shri Neeraj Sheth Ms Fereshte D. Sethna Shri Mrunal Parikh Shri Jasbir Chouhan ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 245Q(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.TA No. 6853/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 GE Asset Management Ofice of the Dy. Director of बनाम/ Incorporated A/c. General Income-tax(International Vs. Electric Pension Trust, Taxation), Range 3(1), C/o Pricewaterhouse R. No. 136, Scindia House, Coopers Pvt. Ltd., N.M. Road, Ballard Estate, PWC House, Plot 18/A, Mumbai-400 038 Guru Nanak Road, Stational Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा स…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PNB FINANCE & INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to

ITA/306/2010HC Delhi18 Oct 2010

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…he decisions rendered in CIT V. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd, (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC), Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC), Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1968) 68 ITR 486 (SC), Fidelity Advisor Series VIII, 271 ITR 1 and came to hold as follows:- “In view of the above the income from the transactions of sale and purchase of shares was business income of the assessee company and were in fact purchased not for investment purposes but for the purpose of sale at a profit are liable to be taxed under the head business income and not under the head capital gain…

Visheshwar Singh v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC), Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Judgments citing Visheshwar Singh v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC), Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. v. CIT