What is Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India authority for?

The issue of shares and share premium is a capital account transaction, not an income-generating event, therefore Chapter X (Transfer Pricing) provisions are not attracted to deem notional or hypothetical income from such transactions.

How many judgments cite Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India?

172 judgments on BharatTax cite Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (368 ITR 1), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 147, Section 131, Section 144C(13), Section 148.

Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (368 ITR 1)

Atomstroyexport, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)Circle -1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 575/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 44B

…i Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (supra). Similar view has been taken by Bombay High Court in DIT v. Sonat Offshore Drilling Inc. [IT Appeal No. 508 of 2007, dated 16-9-2008] and also in Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2014] 50 taxmann.com 300/368 ITR 1/[2015] 228 Taxman 25 ( Bom .). Further, the Machinery Section of the act cannot be read de-hors charging section. The act has to be read as integrated manner. Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294, held that: "No doubt there is a qualitative difference between the charging provision and a computation provision. And ordina…

Income Tax Officer-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Flagship Housing Development P. Ltd.( Formerly Known As M/S. Absolute Building Company Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4642/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…195. 8. The ld. CIT(A) held that in so far as share premium is concerned, same is not taxable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. 10 M/s. Flagship Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. Ltd reported in [2014] 368 ITR 1 (Bombay) and held that the premium received is a capital receipt which is not taxable as income and the amendment has been brought in the statute by the Finance Act 2012, when it has become taxable u/s.56(2)(viib) as income from other sources, if the shares exceed the fair market value. However, he held that the amendment is applicable from A.Y.201…

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/ Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1218/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 752/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Thomas Cook (India) Limited v. Additional/Joint/Dy. /Asst., CIT National e-Assessment Centre Thomas Cook Building Delhi Dr. D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai - 400001 PAN: AAACT4050C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri J.D. Mistry Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Fenil Bhat Department Represented by : Shri K.C. Selvamani Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 26 & 27.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2023 O R…

Rajasthan Transmat Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 165/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MEETHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, AR and Shri Vinod Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR MEETHA LAL MEENA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 165/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Rajasthan Transmat Private Ltd. cuke The ITO Vs. Village: Chirota, Post: Ajay Rajpura Ward 7(2) Kalwar Road, Jaipur 303 007 (Raj) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 0662 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Mrs. Prabha Rana, AR and Shri Vi…

Tpg Growth II Makets Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh BafnaFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5Section 9Section 92C(3)

…ssitate computation of income. Section 92(1) of the Act provides that any income arising from international transaction shall be computed having regards to the ALP. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has, in the case of Vodafone India Services Vs. Union of India : 368 ITR 1 had observed that the provisions contained in Chapter X of the Act are machinery provisions to arrive at arm’s length price of a transaction between AEs. Thus, it can be concluded that the machinery provisions contained in Chapter X related to determination of ALP would come into play at the stage of computation of income arising from ‘Internationa…

Hsbc Securities and Capital Markets (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka / Tejas Mhatre

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 702/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) M/s. HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. PAN: AAACJ1395E ..... Appellant Vs. DCIT-4(1), Room No. 640, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. ...... Respondent DCIT-4(1), Room No. 640, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/s. HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. 52/60, mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mum…

Hsbc Securities and Capital Markets (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4459/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka / Tejas Mhatre

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 702/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) M/s. HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. PAN: AAACJ1395E ..... Appellant Vs. DCIT-4(1), Room No. 640, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. ...... Respondent DCIT-4(1), Room No. 640, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/s. HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. 52/60, mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mum…

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Hsbc Securities and Capital Markets (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1661/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka / Tejas Mhatre

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 702/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) M/s. HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. PAN: AAACJ1395E ..... Appellant Vs. DCIT-4(1), Room No. 640, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. ...... Respondent DCIT-4(1), Room No. 640, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/s. HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. 52/60, mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mum…

Pfs Shipping (I) Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee [ITA No

ITA 1347/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 57

…ith Section 144C(3) of the Act. 22. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue before CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the addition by following, inter alia, the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India :[2014] 368 ITR 1 (Bombay) and DIT, International Taxation – II, Mumbai vs. Besix KierDabhol SA : [2012] 210 Taxman 151 (Bombay) (Mag.)[30-08-2012]. 23. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal. 24. We have considered the submissions advanced by the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. We note that in the case of B…

M/S. Brightcom Group Limited (Formerly Known As Lycos Internet Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…nue, a statement made by the learned Counsel for the assessee at the Bar which could not be controverted by the learned DR 23. Further, we find the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services (P) Ltd vs. Union of India reported in (2014) 368 ITR 1 has held that the issue of shares at a premium by the assessee to its nonresident holding company does not give right to any income from an admitted international transaction and therefore, there is no occasion to apply Chapter X in such cases. 24. We find the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd vs. DC…

DCIT, Circle-17(2), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Lycos Internet Ltd (Presently Known As Brightcom Group Limited), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 480/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…nue, a statement made by the learned Counsel for the assessee at the Bar which could not be controverted by the learned DR 23. Further, we find the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services (P) Ltd vs. Union of India reported in (2014) 368 ITR 1 has held that the issue of shares at a premium by the assessee to its nonresident holding company does not give right to any income from an admitted international transaction and therefore, there is no occasion to apply Chapter X in such cases. 24. We find the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd vs. DC…

M/S. Brightcom Group Limited (Formerly Known As Lycos Internet Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 451/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…nue, a statement made by the learned Counsel for the assessee at the Bar which could not be controverted by the learned DR 23. Further, we find the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services (P) Ltd vs. Union of India reported in (2014) 368 ITR 1 has held that the issue of shares at a premium by the assessee to its nonresident holding company does not give right to any income from an admitted international transaction and therefore, there is no occasion to apply Chapter X in such cases. 24. We find the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd vs. DC…

M/S. Brightcom Group Limited (Formerly Known As Lycos Internet Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 365/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…nue, a statement made by the learned Counsel for the assessee at the Bar which could not be controverted by the learned DR 23. Further, we find the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services (P) Ltd vs. Union of India reported in (2014) 368 ITR 1 has held that the issue of shares at a premium by the assessee to its nonresident holding company does not give right to any income from an admitted international transaction and therefore, there is no occasion to apply Chapter X in such cases. 24. We find the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd vs. DC…

ITO WD 1(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Goodyield Farming Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2357/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI, M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Ward 1(1)(4) Vs. M/s. Goodyield Farming Ltd Room No.531A, 307, Raut Lane M.K.Road, Aayakar Bhawan Opp. Iskcon Mumbai – 400 020 Vile Parle (W) Mumbai – 400 049 PAN/GIR No.AAACO7761M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rashmikant Modi & Ms.Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue by Shri Kishor Dhule Date of Hearing 11/01/2023 Date of Pronouncement 22/02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.2357/Mum/2017 for A.Y.2013-14 arises out of the orde…

DCIT Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Suchir Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit –Central Circle – 2(2) V. M/S. Suchir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building (Amalgamated Company – Manan Pharma Pvt Ltd. W.E.F 01.04.2013) Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Shiv Ashish M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Prade, Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaccm7533K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Pooja Rander & Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Rander &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 115JSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…application only on the amounts received as income and not on capital account. The impugned order placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [20151228 Taxman 50/12014] 50 taxmann.com 300/368 ITR 1 (Bom) wherein, it has been held that the amount received on share capital including premium are undoubtedly on capital account in absence of express legislation. Further reliance was placed upon the decision of the hon'ble apex court in G. S. Homes & Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [20161 73 taxmann.com 120/242 Taxman 58/387 ITR 126 wherein, the decisio…

Deputy CIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 821/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Essar Shipping Dy. Cit-Circle – 5(3)(1), Limited R. No. 568, Aayakar बिधम/ Essar House, 11, K K Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aacce3707D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri Rishav Patwari, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash R. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri

Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 28Section 43Section 92Section 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM, & SHRI M BALAGANESH, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/s Essar Shipping Dy. CIT-Circle – 5(3)(1), Limited R. No. 568, Aayakar बिधम/ Essar House, 11, K K Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AACCE3707D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Prakash R. Mane, Ld. DR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri Rishav Patwari, Ld. ARs सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.08.2022 Date…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

…could be of income in relation to asset located in India and not of asset located outside India. The distinction between income and asset (capital balance) has been explained by the Hon'ble Bombay High court in Vodafone Services India P Ltd vs Union of India 368 ITR 1 (Bom). 14. Provisions of Section 149(1)(c) and proviso 2 to Sec 147 make it clear that what is intended to be reassessed is only income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment for any assessment year. 15. The AO has not disclosed nor referred to any…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

…could be of income in relation to asset located in India and not of asset located outside India. The distinction between income and asset (capital balance) has been explained by the Hon'ble Bombay High court in Vodafone Services India P Ltd vs Union of India 368 ITR 1 (Bom). 14. Provisions of Section 149(1)(c) and proviso 2 to Sec 147 make it clear that what is intended to be reassessed is only income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment for any assessment year. 15. The AO has not disclosed nor referred to any…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

…could be of income in relation to asset located in India and not of asset located outside India. The distinction between income and asset (capital balance) has been explained by the Hon'ble Bombay High court in Vodafone Services India P Ltd vs Union of India 368 ITR 1 (Bom). 14. Provisions of Section 149(1)(c) and proviso 2 to Sec 147 make it clear that what is intended to be reassessed is only income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment for any assessment year. 15. The AO has not disclosed nor referred to any…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

…could be of income in relation to asset located in India and not of asset located outside India. The distinction between income and asset (capital balance) has been explained by the Hon'ble Bombay High court in Vodafone Services India P Ltd vs Union of India 368 ITR 1 (Bom). 14. Provisions of Section 149(1)(c) and proviso 2 to Sec 147 make it clear that what is intended to be reassessed is only income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment for any assessment year. 15. The AO has not disclosed nor referred to any…

Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

What is Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Atomstroyexport, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)Circle -1(1)(2), Mumbai

Income Tax Officer-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Flagship Housing Development P. Ltd.( Formerly Known As M/S. Absolute Building Company Private Limited, Mumbai

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/ Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

Rajasthan Transmat Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur

Tpg Growth II Makets Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai

Hsbc Securities and Capital Markets (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Hsbc Securities and Capital Markets (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Hsbc Securities and Capital Markets (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

Pfs Shipping (I) Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(2), Mumbai

M/S. Brightcom Group Limited (Formerly Known As Lycos Internet Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -16(1), Hyderabad

DCIT, Circle-17(2), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Lycos Internet Ltd (Presently Known As Brightcom Group Limited), Hyderabad

M/S. Brightcom Group Limited (Formerly Known As Lycos Internet Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

M/S. Brightcom Group Limited (Formerly Known As Lycos Internet Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -17(2), Hyderabad

ITO WD 1(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Goodyield Farming Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Suchir Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Deputy CIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai