“Section 90(2)”

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

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

preference shares) payable out of its income in India”. It is important to bear in mind that it is by virtue of Section 90(2), which specifically provides that “Where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside ... Section 90, proceeded to decide the matter in favour of the assessee by observing, inter alia, as follows 5. By virtue of Section 90(2) of the Act, since there is a double taxation avoidance agreement between India and Japan, the provisions of the Act shall apply to a permanent

DCIT Intl Tax Cir-4(3) (2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Win on Shipping, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

Section 90, we find that 5 Assessment Year: 2015-16 these provisions do not start with a obstante clause vis-a-vis Section 90(2) and, therefore, these sub-sections cannot be construed as limitation to, or rider to, somewhat unqualified treaty override stipulated in Section 90(2). Whatever interpretation ... beneficial to the assessee vis-a-vis the provisions of the applicable tax treaty; that principle of treaty override, as set out in Section 90(2), remains unaffected by these provisions. As we hold so, we make it clear that whether the same position will also apply with respect

Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountnat Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

treaty provisions, there is no occasion to refer to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as in terms of Section 90(2), “where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside India, as the case

ITO (International Taxation) 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajeev Suresh Gehi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us Is Delayed By 14 Days. In The Present Appeal, The Impugned Order Dated 11-02-2022 Was Received By The Revenue On The Same Date. Thus, As Per The Provisions Of Section 253(3) Of The Act, The Revenue Was Required The Filed The Appeal Within 60 Days From The Received The Order. However, The Revenue Filed Appeal, For The Year Under 2 Shri Rajeev Suresh Gehi

domestic tax laws, taxable in India. The revenue thus derives no support from the Indo UAE tax treaty, which, under the scheme of Section 90(2), must make way 8 Shri Rajeev Suresh Gehi to the domestic law provisions except to the extent the applicable treaty provisions are 'more' favorable

M/S Iqvia Ag (Previously Known As Ims Ag, Switzerland vs. The DCIT (Intl Tax) 2(2) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Iqvia Ag Dcit (It) – 2(2)(2) V. (Previously Known As Ims Ag) 16Th Floor, Air India Building C/O. Iqvia Consulting & Nariman Point Information Services India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021 Unit No. 902, 9Th Floor Supreme Business Park Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Mumbai - 400076 Pan: Aacci5872K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Ms. Bharati Singh

under the Act as well the Tax Treaty and therefore not taxable in India. As mentioned above, assessee is resident of Switzerland, under Section 90(2) of the Act and accordingly governed by the beneficial provisions of the Tax Treaty as compared to the provisions of the Act, wherever applicable

ACIT (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.P.Morgan Indian Investment Company Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue becomes infructuous as dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-3(1)(1), M/S J. P. Morgan India R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air Investment Company India Building, Nariman Mauritius Limited, बनाम/ Point, Mumbai-400 021 C/O- Srb & Associates Llp, Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacf0626J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 41/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S J. P. Morgan India Acit-3(1)(1), Investment Company R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air India Mauritius Limited, Building, Nariman Point, बनाम/ C/O- Srb & Associates Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 18.05.2022 & 23.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

treaty provisions are beneficial as compared to the provisions of the Act; the taxpayer has right to rely on the treaty provisions. 20. Section 90(2) of the Act reads as under: "90(2) Where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside ... taxpayer chooses not to claim treaty benefit as we have already noted above that he can do so under the provisions of Section 90(2) of the Act. When he does so, his income will have to be computed under the provisions of the Act for that year. This will

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

section 115JA of the Act were not attracted to the facts of the case. b) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that  Section 90(2) provides that the provisions of the Act shall apply to the assessee, who is otherwise eligible for double tax treaty relief only ... Appellant, due to its carried forward losses and which, therefore has to be disregarded in view of the provisions contained in section 90(2) of the Act c) The contention upheld by learned CIT (A) is unjustifiable and must be quashed. 4. DENIAL FOR DEDUCTION OF HEAD OFFICE EXPENDITURE

Spe India Films Holding Llc, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Intl Tax) -4(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result ground no-2 raised by the assessee- is fully allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalspe India Films Holding Llc C/O, Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Centre, Tower No.3, 27Th Floor-32Nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaocs1827L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Narimaon Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.J. Pardiwala/Paras Savla Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Drp’] Dated 06.01.2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant, Objects To The Order Dated 19 January 2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

assessee to the non-residents does not fall within the ambit of "royalty" u/s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act. We find that section 90(2) of the Income tax Act which states that either the provisions of the Income tax Act or the DTAA, whichever is more beneficial

Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte.Ltd Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Tax) 2(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1781/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2019-20) Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd. (Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.) C/O. Dhruva Advisors Llp 1101 & 1102, 11Th Floor, One World Centre, Tower 2B, 841 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aadcd – 4348-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2(1)(2), Room No.1612, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sunil Moti Lala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 आदेश/ Order

treaty provisions, there is no occasion to refer to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as in terms of Section 90(2), “where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory 6 outside India, as the case

Anuj Bhagwati, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Anuj Bhagwati Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Nishant House, 6, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Carmichael Road, Room No.533, 5Th Floor, Cumballa Hill S.O, Mumbai-400086 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aehpb1858C Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent

Para 13 to 17 of the order which is read as under: 13. It was submitted that as per the provisions of Section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of India has entered into a DTAA, the provisions of the Act would apply to the extent they

Anuj Bhagwati, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Anuj Bhagwati Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Nishant House, 6, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Carmichael Road, Room No.533, 5Th Floor, Cumballa Hill S.O, Mumbai-400086 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aehpb1858C Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent

Para 13 to 17 of the order which is read as under: 13. It was submitted that as per the provisions of Section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of India has entered into a DTAA, the provisions of the Act would apply to the extent they

DCIT-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Karvat Cover More Assist Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

DCIT (International Taxation), Range 3(1)(2) held as under. "The scope of the work order will fall under beneficial provision section 90(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 as per Article 12 of India Australia DTAA. which is beneficial provision for the assessee. Accordingly, the same