DCIT IT 3 3 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRAMARICA ASPF II CYPRUS HOLDING LTD, CTPRUS

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment the AO held that the assessee is not the beneficial owner of the interest income and is only a conduit entity to avail the beneficial tax rate under the treaty. Therefore the AO held that the interest income is to be taxed at 20% as per section 115A

DCIT IT 332 MUMBAI, INCOME TAX vs. PRAMARICA ASPF II CYPRUS HOLDING LTD, CYPRUS

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment the AO held that the assessee is not the beneficial owner of the interest income and is only a conduit entity to avail the beneficial tax rate under the treaty. Therefore the AO held that the interest income is to be taxed at 20% as per section 115A

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

115A\nof the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, based on the circular we submit that interest paid to\nhead office and overseas branch offices should be allowed as expenditure.\nIf you need any further information, please let us know.\nYours faithfully,\nAnand Shukla\nSenior Vice President- Tax\n12\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nΙ.Τ.Α. No. 2201/Mum/2024

DCIT(IT)-2(2)(2), NARIMAN POINT vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, BANDRA

115A\nof the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, based on the circular we submit that interest paid to\nhead office and overseas branch offices should be allowed as expenditure.\nIf you need any further information, please let us know.\nYours faithfully,\nAnand Shukla\nSenior Vice President- Tax\n11\n12\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nΙ.Τ.Α. No. 2201/Mum/2024

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only the rate of taxability has been altered based on beneficial provisions of India- Germany DTAA.” 3. The only dispute raised by the Revenue, in its appeals, is against the deletion of the penalty levied under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only the rate of taxability has been altered based on beneficial provisions of India- Germany DTAA.” 3. The only dispute raised by the Revenue, in its appeals, is against the deletion of the penalty levied under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only the rate of taxability has been altered based on beneficial provisions of India- Germany DTAA.” 3. The only dispute raised by the Revenue, in its appeals, is against the deletion of the penalty levied under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only the rate of taxability has been altered based on beneficial provisions of India- Germany DTAA.” 3. The only dispute raised by the Revenue, in its appeals, is against the deletion of the penalty levied under section

ACIT(IT)-4(3)(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is\ndismissed

reassessment order and thus,\ndismissed the grounds raised by the assessee on the said two issues,\nby holding it as infructuous. Revenue has come up in appeal before the\nTribunal against such disposal of the two grounds by the ld. CIT(A)\ntreating it as infructuous.\n5. In the given set of facts where Revenue had not contested the relief

ACIT(IT)-4(3)(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, Revenue has raised up the issue on the relief so granted by ld. CIT(A). 5.1. In our considered view, ld. CIT(A) has rightly dealt with the issue and has held it to be infructuous since it was already settled in favour of the assessee while adjudicating on appeal against the original

DCIT(IT)-2(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, BANDRA

In the result, appeals by the revenue are accordingly dismissed\nand those by the assessee are allowed

115A\nof the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, based on the circular we submit that interest paid to\nhead office and overseas branch offices should be allowed as expenditure.\nIf you need any further information, please let us know.\nYours faithfully,\nAnand Shukla\nSenior Vice President- Tax\n12\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nΙ.Τ.Α. No. 2201/Mum/2024

DCIT(IT) - 2(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, BANDRA

115A\nof the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, based on the circular we submit that interest paid to\nhead office and overseas branch offices should be allowed as expenditure.\nIf you need any further information, please let us know.\nYours faithfully,\nAnand Shukla\nSenior Vice President- Tax\n12\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nΙ.Τ.Α. No. 2201/Mum/2024

WORLD SPORT GROUP (MAURITIUS) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 115A of the Act. 9. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in not categorically stating in the final order that the reassessment

CELESTIAL VISION LIMITED,BVI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1625/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Celestial Vision V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited बिधम Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1) Po Box No. 146, Road 604, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Town, Tortola, British Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Virgin Islands (East)400051. 111000. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc1160A Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr Dr सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

115A r.w.s. 91 of the Act as there is no Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DIAA) with the BVI of which assessee in a tax resident. 4. The assessee filed objections before the DRP which are reproduced below: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the Charter Hire Charges

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,CALIFORNIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Institute Of V/S. Acit (International बनाम America Inc. Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai 5345, The Robert Mouawad 17Th Floor, Air India Campus, Armada Drive, Building, Nariman Point, Carlsbad, California Mumbai-400021 Zip-092008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7962K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 115A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(2) of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ['DTAA'] should be restricted to the amount determined in accordance with the Advanced Pricing Page 4 of 22 A.Y. 2018-19 Gemological Institute of America Inc. Agreement ['APA'], if any, entered into by GIA India Laboratory Private Limited with

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Institute Of V/S. Acit (International बनाम America Inc. Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai 5345, The Robert Mouawad 17Th Floor, Air India Campus, Armada Drive, Building, Nariman Point, Carlsbad, California Mumbai-400021 Zip-092008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7962K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 115A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(2) of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ['DTAA'] should be restricted to the amount determined in accordance with the Advanced Pricing Page 4 of 22 A.Y. 2018-19 Gemological Institute of America Inc. Agreement ['APA'], if any, entered into by GIA India Laboratory Private Limited with