“Section 90(2)”

AMIT SATPATHY,MUMBAI vs. ITO-42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailamit Satpathy, Flat No.404, Tower A, Imperial Heights, Oshirwara, Goregaon (West) ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400104 Pan: Arrps8419D V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Assistant Director Of Income Tax, …………….Respondent Central Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru - 560500

exclusion claim of INR 41,79,095 claim made by the appellant towards salary income earned in UK ("UK sourced income"), as per section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act') read with the Article 16(1) of DTAA between India and UK, despite producing

BOBST BIELEFELD GMBH,GERMANY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

section 44DA of the Act would not be applicable in its case. The appellant has pointed out that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, the provisions of the Treaty shall apply to the extent that the same are more beneficial as compared to the provisions

BOBST BIELEFELD GMBH,GERMANY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

section 44DA of the Act would not be applicable in its case. The appellant has pointed out that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, the provisions of the Treaty shall apply to the extent that the same are more beneficial as compared to the provisions

OWENS CORNING (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT (INT TAX) CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2023-24 Owens Corning (Singapore) Deputy Commissioner Of Pte Ltd., Income Tax (International Tax), C/O. Owens Corning (India) Vs. Circle-3(2)(2), Pvt. Limited, 6Th Floor, 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Hiranandani Gardens, Bandra Kurla Complex, Powai, Mumbai-400051. Maharashtra-400076. Pan : Aabco5666L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sandeep Bhalla For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 10-07-2025, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, ("Ld.Drp"), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law prevailing on the subject, as per section 90(2) of the Act, the income from fees for technical services ought to have been taxed at the beneficial tax rate of 10% under Article 12 of India

GOLDMAN SACHS MAURITIUS NBFC LLC,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2023-24 Goldman Sachs Mauritius Nbfc Assistant Commissioner Of Llc, Income Tax – (International C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Taxation)-2(3)(2), Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Room No.610, 6Th Floor Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Mumbai-400028 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (Pan: Aaecg8689C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Act Dated 14.07.2025, Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Mumbai Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2025-26/1077165542(1), Dated 18.06.2025 Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Ay 2023-24. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

subsequent years u/s 74 of the Act as assessee chose to take the benefit of Section 74 by virtue of provisions of Section 90(2) in the assessment year 2019-20. In the year under consideration, assessee has claimed the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA under Article

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalshell International Petroleum Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited Income Tax (International C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd Floor, Taxation) 4(2)(1), Lodhaexcelus, Apollo Mills Mumbai Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011

provision of business support services and research & development/technical services. Since assessee is a tax resident of the U.K., in view of provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, it is entitled to the beneficial provisions of the India-UK Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) which it had availed while

ITO (IT)- 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

Intelsat UK, the provisions of India-UK DTAA s UK DTAA shall be applicable to the extent they are more beneficial as per section 90(2) of applicable to the extent they are more beneficial as per section 90(2) of applicable to the extent they are more beneficial ... section 90(2) of the Act. 15. As per the Revenue, by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective As per the Revenue, by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective As per the Revenue, by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976, Explanation effect from 01.06.1976, Explanation

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

surcharge and cess on the tax\nliability computed by applying rate of 10% under Article 11.\n12.4.2.\nIn this regard, assessee contended that section 90(2) of the\nAct entitles the assessee to apply more beneficial provisions between\nthe Act and the relevant DTAA. Accordingly, assessee submitted that in\nrespect

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,COLOGNE, GERMANY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

surcharge and cess on the tax\nliability computed by applying rate of 10% under Article 11.\n12.4.2.\nIn this regard, assessee contended that section 90(2) of the\nAct entitles the assessee to apply more beneficial provisions between\nthe Act and the relevant DTAA. Accordingly, assessee submitted that in\nrespect

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

surcharge and cess on the tax\nliability computed by applying rate of 10% under Article 11.\n12.4.2. In this regard, assessee contended that section 90(2) of the\nAct entitles the assessee to apply more beneficial provisions between\nthe Act and the relevant DTAA. Accordingly, assessee submitted that in\nrespect

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

surcharge and cess on the tax\nliability computed by applying rate of 10% under Article 11.\n12.4.2. In this regard, assessee contended that section 90(2) of the\nAct entitles the assessee to apply more beneficial provisions between\nthe Act and the relevant DTAA. Accordingly, assessee submitted that in\nrespect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“H” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“H” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI

TURF ESTATE JV,MUMBAI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

engineering services for its residential projects at Mumbai, expenses of which have been debited to project work in progress. By resorting to section 90(2) of the Act, assessee availed the benefit under the DTAA between the respective countries where each of the payee is the resident. Reference was made