← All Phrases

“Section 112(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 112Section 112(1)22 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 112(1) is Amway India Enterprises v. DCIT (111 ITD 112), cited in 127 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 112(1)

Amway India Enterprises v. DCIT
111 ITD 112 · 2008 · ITAT
127
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on computer software, including software licenses, at the rate of 60%.

49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekh Banerjee v. CIT 1-10 2
69 Taxmann.com 219 · 2016 · Supreme Court
85
citing judgments

The core legal principle established in Sreelekh Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) relates to the burden of proof for explaining cash credits under the Income Tax Act.

Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT (
101 ITR 1 · 1975 · High Court
75
citing judgments

An order passed by the Assessing Officer is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, justifying the invocation of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, even if the issue is debatable. If a revisional order directs a fresh assessment, no prejudice is caused to the assessee as they can contest the observations made.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd.
112 Taxmann.com 322 · 2019 · Supreme Court
71
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant previous year. This principle applies to assessment years prior to the amendment by Finance Bill 2022.

Raja Kishor Raghuramy Reddy v. ACIT
112 Taxmann.com 134 · 2019 · Supreme Court
66
citing judgments

The Supreme Court considered the delay in filing an appeal and the appellant's justification for it. The court noted that the appellant's registered address was used for communication and that the postal authorities returned mail. The court referenced its earlier decision in 'Meda Raja Kishor Raghuramy Reddy Vs ACIT' when considering the appellant's case.

CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd.
100 ITR 706 · 1975 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

An investment retains its capital nature even if its resale was foreseen and contemplated when made, and the possibility of enhanced values motivated the investment. The classification as a capital asset or stock-in-trade depends on factors like the assessee's intention, frequency of transactions, and acquisition funding.

CIT, Panji v. Dempo Company Limited
74 Taxmann.com 15 · 2016 · Supreme Court
62
citing judgments

The 20% tax rate under Section 112 applies to capital gains arising from the transfer of a depreciable asset, even if it is deemed a short-term capital gain under Section 50, provided the asset was held for more than 36 months. The fiction created by Section 50 for treating such gains as short-term does not alter the long-term nature of the asset for applying the tax rate under Section 112.

ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor
60 ITR 74 · 1966 · Supreme Court
60
citing judgments

Income must be charged only once, preventing double taxation. If income is mistakenly assessed in the hands of individual members instead of the Association of Persons or Hindu Undivided Family, or vice versa, the Income Tax Officer must make appropriate adjustments for the tax already realized.

Judgments citing Section 112(1)

Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhawan Bkc Kurla vs. Godrej Agrovet Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2026/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalthe Income Tax Officer, Godrej Agrovet Limited, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Godrej One, Bkc Kurla, 3Rd Floor Pirojshanagar, Mumbai-400051 E.E, Highway, Vikhroli So Mumbai, Mumbai-400079. [Pan: Aaacg0617Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR
Section 112Section 112(1)Section 112(1)(c)Section 133(6)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 48

assessee remitted the purchase consideration to 10 non-resident individual shareholders on the following basis: a. After deducting TDS @ 11.54% in terms of section 112(1)(c)(iii) from the gross purchase consideration (as against capital gains arising on transfer of shares) paid to 8 non-resident shareholders of unlisted ... justify the rate of 11.54% adopted by the assessee. The DR pointed out that for the rate of 10% as prescribed in Section 112(1)(c)(iii) of the Act, the first and second proviso to Section 48 are not considered. Further, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee

Sanjeev Garg, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(2)(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 992/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292BSection 45Section 54

sale of the property in the return filed for AY 2012-13 as under: Asset in the case of others where proviso under section 112(1) is not exercised a Full value of consideration 2a 73,20,000 b Deductions under section 48 i Cost of acquisition after indexation

Cpi India I Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1826/DEL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.1826/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2018-19) Cpi India I Ltd. C/O Vasa Chauhan & Associates, Off. No. 41, 3Rd Floor, Hi Life Premises, P M Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400054 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadcc-1505-G बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(2)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, (Through Vc) & Ms. Kashish Gupta, Chartered Accountants "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2025 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Is A Tax Resident Of Mauritius. The Assesee Is An Investment Holding Company. The Assessee Has Obtained Global Business License From The Financial

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, (Through VC) &For Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 112(1)(c)Section 147Section 48

first proviso to section 48 of the Act and held that the assessee is liable to tax as per the provisions of section 112(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. The AO also denied Treaty benefit on Long Term Capital Loss determined by the assessee. The ld. AR submits that

Bando India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 606/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

August, 2011, taking a diametrically reverse view has brought about an uncertainty in understanding the impact and the effect of the proviso to Section 112(1). Certainty is integral to rule of law. Certainty and stability form the basis foundation of any fiscal laws. Highlighting this fact in Vodafone International

Arthi Baliga, Chennai vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

capital gains are taxed in the hands of the assessee (i.e. Individual), the same is taxable at the rate of 20% as per section 112(1)(a) and similarly, if the tax is assessed in the hands of the firm, the same is taxable only at the rate ... section 112(1)(d). Therefore, in either way, there is no prejudice to the interest of the revenue as the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not create a distinction between the rate at which Capital Gains is charged in the hands of the Individual and Partnership Firm

Rhodianyl.Sas, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4002/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrirhodianyl Sas V/S. Dcit, International Tax 25, Rue De Clinchy, Paris, बनाम Circle -4(1)(1), Mumbai France Air India Building, Outside India. Nariman Point, Mumbai Maharashtra-400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicr6367G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Riddhi MaruFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 112Section 112(1)(c)Section 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

capital loss provided by the Assessee based on the contention that in case of unlisted shares of an Indian Company, the provisions of section 112(1)(c) of the Act are applicable and not the provisions of first proviso to section 48. The Ld. DRP/the Ld.AO erred in not considering ... after giving effect to the first or the second proviso), there is no need to recompute the gains and apply the rates under section 112(1)(c)(iii). The Ld. DRP/Ld. AO erred in considering the whole transaction of the Appellant as a single sale contract-based transfer and considering

Pernia Qureshi Consultancy Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-07, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 992/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292BSection 45Section 54

sale of the property in the return filed for AY 2012-13 as under: Asset in the case of others where proviso under section 112(1) is not exercised Full value of consideration 2a Deductions under section 48 i Cost of acquisition after indexation bi ii Cost of improvement after

Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Jay Bharat Mehta, Mumbai

ITA 1085/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry &For Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 54FSection 68

exchange in India, the Assessee computed long term capital gain tax @10% [without indexation] in accordance with the provisions contained in Proviso to Section 112(1) of the Act. However, the Assessee claimed deduction of INR.11,90,58,405/- under Section 54F of the Act claiming to have purchased

Manojkumar Madangopal Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 1105/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 112(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 6Section 6(1)(c)

erred in not appreciating that the rate of tax applicable to the transfer of shares of GTPL was 10% under section 112(1) (c) (iii). 8. Without prejudice to the above, if the Appellant is held to be a resident, the indexation benefit ought to be granted to the Assessee

Hero Motocorp Ltd (As Successor of Hero Investment P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

HHML'), being listed securities, will be 10% (plus surcharge and cess) of the amount of capital gains as per the proviso to section 112(1) of the Act?” 26.7 After examining all the aspects of the transaction, AAR had held as follows:- “8.1 Question No. (i): Yes, the tax payable ... Motors Limited being listed securities, will be 10% (plus surcharge and cess) of the amount of capital gains as per the proviso to section 112(1) of the Act.” 26.8 We are of considered view that the instances of disclosures to various government and statutory authorities and tax authorities cited

Nikesh Arora, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Gurgon

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1008/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2

months from December, 2014 to 1st February, 2017. Accordingly, he has computed the capital gain and resultant tax liability in accordance with section 112(1)(c)(iii) of the Act read with Rule 115. 5 | P a g e AY: 2017-18 6. From the details furnished by the assessee

Firestone Industrial Products Inc, United States vs. ACIT, Circle 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the impugned addition is deleted

ITA 1066/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), assessee had taken a plea that the company is a separate entity from its share holders/members and, with transfer of shares, assets of the company are not transferred, and the same continues to be held by the company. It was also explained that since the assessee did not have PAN at the time of sale of shares, buyer M/s Sundaram Industries Pvt. Ltd. deducted @20% plus surcharge and cess on such Long Term Capital Gain earned by the assessee, which is reflected in From 26AS an

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. SupriyaFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 112(1)Section 112(1)(c)Section 112(1)(ii)

plus surcharge and cess, while the Assessee had claimed the tax liability @ 10% plus surcharge and cess as per section 112(1)(c)(iii) of the Act. 2.1 In appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee had taken a plea that the company is a separate entity from its share ... long term capital gain on sale of unlisted shares at the rate of 21.63% (including surcharge and cess) under section 112(1)(c) (i) of the Act, as against the tax computed by the assessee in the return of income at the rate of 10.815%. (including surcharge and cess) under

M/S. Petrofils Co. Operative Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Vadodara

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1273/AHD/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.DR
Section 112(1)Section 250(6)Section 56Section 57

head short-term capital gains to be treated as income from long term capital gains and concessional rate of tax levied thereon under section 112(1) of the Act. Considering the commonality of issues raised in all the appeals before us , they were all taken up for hearing together ... assessee’s plea before us is that the concessional rate of tax leviable on long term capital gains in terms of provisions of section 112(1) of the Act, be applied to short term capital gains earned on the sale of depreciable assets in terms of provisions of section

M/S. Petrofils Co .Operative Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1255/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.DR
Section 112(1)Section 250(6)Section 56Section 57

head short-term capital gains to be treated as income from long term capital gains and concessional rate of tax levied thereon under section 112(1) of the Act. Considering the commonality of issues raised in all the appeals before us , they were all taken up for hearing together ... assessee’s plea before us is that the concessional rate of tax leviable on long term capital gains in terms of provisions of section 112(1) of the Act, be applied to short term capital gains earned on the sale of depreciable assets in terms of provisions of section

M/S. Petrofils Co .Operative Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Vadodara

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1254/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.DR
Section 112(1)Section 250(6)Section 56Section 57

head short-term capital gains to be treated as income from long term capital gains and concessional rate of tax levied thereon under section 112(1) of the Act. Considering the commonality of issues raised in all the appeals before us , they were all taken up for hearing together ... assessee’s plea before us is that the concessional rate of tax leviable on long term capital gains in terms of provisions of section 112(1) of the Act, be applied to short term capital gains earned on the sale of depreciable assets in terms of provisions of section

M/S. Petrofils Co .Operative Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Vadodara

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1253/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.DR
Section 112(1)Section 250(6)Section 56Section 57

head short-term capital gains to be treated as income from long term capital gains and concessional rate of tax levied thereon under section 112(1) of the Act. Considering the commonality of issues raised in all the appeals before us , they were all taken up for hearing together ... assessee’s plea before us is that the concessional rate of tax leviable on long term capital gains in terms of provisions of section 112(1) of the Act, be applied to short term capital gains earned on the sale of depreciable assets in terms of provisions of section

Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia, Mumbai vs. ITO (International Taxation) Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4139/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia (International Tax) Ward 6/24, Milan Building, 1(1)(1), 87, Tardeo Road, Room No.1817A, 18 Th Vs. Opp. Tardeo A C Market, Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 034 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azupa6884D Assessee By : Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke, Ars Revenue By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Sash, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.04.2024 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi &For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Sash, DR
Section 112Section 115CSection 143Section 144C(5)Section 254Section 45Section 48Section 74

Chapter it only prevents the computation as per second proviso to Section 48 of the Act. ii. He further stated that provision to Section 112 (1) ( c) of the Act is not applicable in case of the assessee who is a non-resident Indian purchasing shares in convertible foreign exchange ... cost of acquisition" and "indexed cost of any improvement" had respectively been substituted. Thus, while calculating capital gain by applying provisions 027. of section 112 (1) C ) of the act , benefits of computation of capital gain without benefit of foreign exchange fluctuation as well as indexation both the does

Cpi India I Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Int.Tax. Circle-1(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 382/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2016-17 . Cpi India Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O- Vasa Chauhan & International Taxation, Associates Off. No. 41, Circle -1(2)1), 3Rd Floor, High Life Premises, Delhi P.M. Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai Pan :Aadcc1505G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 112(1)(c)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 48Section 48(1)

read with Rule 115A. He observed that while doing so, the assessee has not followed the provisions contained under section 112(1)(c)(iii) of the Act, which 3 | P a g e AY: 2016-17 specifically debars the benefits given under the second proviso to section ... first proviso to section 48 of the Act read with Rule 115A without applying the provisions of section 112 is thoroughly misconceived as section 112(1)(c)(ii) specifically excludes applicability of second proviso to section 48 of the Act. In certain circumstances assessee’s claim cannot

Phool Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 513/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Legrand Nederland B.V., Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax 3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2487/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelegrand Nederland B.V. V. Acit (Intl. Taxation) – 3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building 61/62, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai Kalpatru Square, Kondivita Road Off. Andheri Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaccl1156B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Prayas Jain Department Represented By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 10(34)Section 112(1)(c)Section 115Section 144C(5)Section 2(22)(d)Section 244ASection 270A

shares of ₹.100,00,00,000. Further, taxes were withheld at 10.515% at the time of payment of consideration in view of section 112(1)(c)(iii) of the Act. The assessee filed its tax return for the AY 2017-18 and offered the capital gains to tax. During