← All Phrases

“attribution of profits to PE”

International TaxDTAADTAA19 judgments

The decision most relied on for attribution of profits to PE is Set Satellite Pte Ltd. v. CIT (307 ITR 205), cited in 96 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on attribution of profits to PE

Set Satellite Pte Ltd. v. CIT
307 ITR 205 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

If a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE) is remunerated at arm's length based on transfer pricing principles, no further profits can be attributed to the foreign enterprise. The principles of profit attribution under DTAA Article 7 are pari-materia to Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

DIT (IT) v. Morgan Stanley & Co Inc.
162 Taxmann 165 · 2007 · Supreme Court
90
citing judgments

The profits of a Permanent Establishment (PE) must be determined on the basis of what an independent enterprise would derive, using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for profit attribution. When applying TNMM, the operating profit from an international transaction should be compared with the operating profit margin of comparables.

ADIT v. E-Funds IT Solution Inc.
301 CTR 601 · 2018 · Supreme Court
35
citing judgments

Once a transfer pricing analysis has been undertaken in respect of an Indian associated enterprise (AE), nothing further needs to be attributed to it as a Permanent Establishment (PE), as this would extinguish the need for attribution of additional profits to the alleged PE.

Rolls Royce PLC v. DIT
339 ITR 147 · 2011 · High Court
28
citing judgments

Profits arising from the sale of sub-assemblies and intermediary services should not be attributed to a Permanent Establishment (PE) at an ad-hoc rate if the facts of the appellant's case are different from those in Rolls Royce PLC. Attributing profits to a PE requires careful consideration of the specific transactions and activities.

Anglo French Textile Company Ltd. v. CIT
23 ITR 101 · 1953 · Supreme Court
21
citing judgments

Profits attributable to a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India can be conservatively estimated, such as by applying a percentage of global profits to Indian sales, when the PE's activities in India are minimal.

Delhi in CIT v. Galileo International Inc.
336 ITR 264 · 2009 · High Court
16
citing judgments

A dependent agent can create a permanent establishment (PE) in India, and profits attributable to that PE can be taxed in India.

Reuters Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (International Taxation), Range 2(1), Mumbai
155 ITD 844 · 2015 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) determined that no further profit can be attributed to a permanent establishment (PE) if the transaction between the assessee and another entity has already been found to be at arm's length.

Honda Motors Co. Ltd. v. ADIT in Civil Appeal Nos.2833 to 2840 of
92 Taxmann.com 353 · 2018 · Supreme Court
14
citing judgments

Even if a Permanent Establishment (PE) exists in India, no further profit can be attributed to a foreign enterprise once the arm's length principle has been satisfied.

Judgments citing attribution of profits to PE

Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/O- Tass Advisors Llp, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aavcs7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 Order

Section 263Section 44B

engagement in India is more than 6 months. Therefore, it constitutes a construction PE in India. 15 | P a g e 8.4 Attribution of Profit to PE under Indian DTAAs including India- China DTAA: In general 8.4.1 Once both the thresholds are met, the next question is what would ... introduced for the first time by the OECD in 2010 on the basis of recommendations made in OECD's report on attribution of profit to PE. The idea of bringing FAR analysis for profit 16 | P a g e attribution to PE similar to profit allocation in case

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy-CIT (Int. Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

justified. In assessee's case we notice that the TPO has relied on the OECD report dated 27.07.2010 on Attribution of profits to PE to conclude that 100% of commercial mark up is to be attributed to the Indian Branch. The ld AR submitted that the OECD commentary provides

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT of Income Tax (Internationsl Taxation) -2(1) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

justified. In assessee's case we notice that the TPO has relied on the OECD report dated 27.07.2010 on Attribution of profits to PE to conclude that 100% of commercial mark up is to be attributed to the Indian Branch. The ld AR submitted that the OECD commentary provides

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Jt CIT (International Taxationa), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

justified. In assessee's case we notice that the TPO has relied on the OECD report dated 27.07.2010 on Attribution of profits to PE to conclude that 100% of commercial mark up is to be attributed to the Indian Branch. The ld AR submitted that the OECD commentary provides

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 458/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

justified. In assessee's case we notice that the TPO has relied on the OECD report dated 27.07.2010 on Attribution of profits to PE to conclude that 100% of commercial mark up is to be attributed to the Indian Branch. The ld AR submitted that the OECD commentary provides

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4652/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

justified. In assessee's case we notice that the TPO has relied on the OECD report dated 27.07.2010 on Attribution of profits to PE to conclude that 100% of commercial mark up is to be attributed to the Indian Branch. The ld AR submitted that the OECD commentary provides

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2313/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

justified. In assessee's case we notice that the TPO has relied on the OECD report dated 27.07.2010 on Attribution of profits to PE to conclude that 100% of commercial mark up is to be attributed to the Indian Branch. The ld AR submitted that the OECD commentary provides

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1273/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

justified. In assessee's case we notice that the TPO has relied on the OECD report dated 27.07.2010 on Attribution of profits to PE to conclude that 100% of commercial mark up is to be attributed to the Indian Branch. The ld AR submitted that the OECD commentary provides

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1165/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

justified. In assessee's case we notice that the TPO has relied on the OECD report dated 27.07.2010 on Attribution of profits to PE to conclude that 100% of commercial mark up is to be attributed to the Indian Branch. The ld AR submitted that the OECD commentary provides

ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1839/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

justified. In assessee's case we notice that the TPO has relied on the OECD report dated 27.07.2010 on Attribution of profits to PE to conclude that 100% of commercial mark up is to be attributed to the Indian Branch. The ld AR submitted that the OECD commentary provides

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1479/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent)

Section 143(3)

justified. In assessee's case we notice that the TPO has relied on the OECD report dated 27.07.2010 on Attribution of profits to PE to conclude that 100% of commercial mark up is to be attributed to the Indian Branch. The ld AR submitted that the OECD commentary provides

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Internationa Taxation)-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3416/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 270A

ITA No.3416/Mum/20: igs 123 M/s BNP Paribas Vs. ACIT (I) Cirle 1(3)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Amadeus It Group Sa, Spain vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3175/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

survives for taxation. 6.1. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the issue of attribution of profits to PE has been decided by Supreme Court in favor of the appellant for Assessment Years 1996-97 to 2005-06 wherein the court

Sac Finance Comany Ltd, Hong Kong vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2336/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 48Section 92C

Supreme Court in DIT vs M/S Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc) (Appeal (civil) 2914 of 2007) laid down in the context of attribution of profits to PE, if the transfer pricing analysis does not adequately reflect the functions performed, assets utilised and risks assumed by the enterprise

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Authority Compqny, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 803/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

ITA Nos. 2227 & 2229/Mum/2017and 7345 & 7347/Mum/2018 CO Nos.: 17 & 18/Mum/ 2021; Assessment years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Page 1

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

ITA Nos. 2227 & 2229/Mum/2017and 7345 & 7347/Mum/2018 CO Nos.: 17 & 18/Mum/ 2021; Assessment years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Page 1

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6994/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 44C

CO Nos.: 114/Mum/2016 and 37/Mum/ 2020 ITA No. 6994/Mum/2012; Assessment year 2008-09 Page 1 of 20 IN THE INCOME

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6993/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 90

CO Nos.: 113/Mum/2016 and 36/Mum/ 2020 ITA No. 6993/Mum/2012; Assessment year 2007-08 Page 1 of 29 IN THE INCOME