“Section 112(1)(c)(iii)”

Section References (mined)Section 112Section 112(1)(c)(iii)8 judgments

Judgments citing Section 112(1)(c)(iii)

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

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 company ... 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

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In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn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

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

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 ... that assessee has only transferred the unlisted shares and therefore, tax has been rightly computed and declared under the specific provisions of section 112(1)(c) (iii) of the Act by the assessee in the return of income. 4. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

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

taxmann.com 436 (Mumbai - Trib.)[15- 03-2023] does not apply to the assessee as that decision was on the issue that whether Section 112(1)(c)(iii) is a special provision for computation of capital gains in case of a non- resident, arising from transfer of unlisted shares and securities ... taxation of non-resident assessee on sale of unlisted shares, capital gains had to be computed only by reference to provisions of section 112(1)(c)(iii), without giving effect to first and second provisos to section 48 of The Act. Here the computation is required to be made

Superb Mind Holding Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

I.T.A.No.1568/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE

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

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