← All Phrases

“Section 91(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 91Section 91(1)15 judgments

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1549/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate and Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

substantial questions of law (SQL) relating to timing mismatch which reads as under: “Whether on true and proper interpretation of Section 91(1) the assessee is entitled to take double taxation benefit for the taxes paid in Kuwait only during the current ear and not during previous years ... above SQL in para 5 of its judgment. The factual position in this regard was that Assessing Officer denied the benefit of section 91(1) of the Act on the ground that payment of taxes in Kuwait was not made in previous year relevant to the present assessment year

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1397/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

substantial questions of law (SQL)\nrelating to timing mismatch which reads as under:\n\n“Whether on true and proper interpretation of Section 91(1) the\nassessee is entitled to take double taxation benefit for the taxes\npaid in Kuwait only during the current ear and not during previous\nyears ... above SQL in para 5 of its\njudgment. The factual position in this regard was that Assessing Officer\ndenied the benefit of section 91(1) of the Act on the ground that payment\nof taxes in Kuwait was not made in previous year relevant to the present\n assessment year

FORTUM INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT TPO 1(2)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 345/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Pareekfortum India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1A, Vandana Building, Tpo-1(2)(2), 11 Tolstoy Marg, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccf0436G Assessee By : Ms. Arya Asopa, Ar Revenue By: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Arya Asopa, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 91(1)Section 92C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL

LOVELOCK & LEWES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 22(2), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn as indicated above

ITA 2172/KOL/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.2172/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Lovelock & Lewes Chartered Accountants Llp.....………………....Appellant Plot No.56&57, Block Dn, Sector V Salt Lake, Parganas North, Kolkata – 700091. [Pan: Aadcc 3457F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(2), Kolkata ………..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pulkit Chhajer, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 17, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.08.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee Has Opted To File A Declaration Under Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas (Dtvsv) Scheme, 2024 In Form No.1 On 29.01.2025 Before The Competent Authority U/S 91(1) & Is Awaiting For The Certificate In Form No.2 From The Competent Authority. Accordingly, It Is Prayed Before The Bench That The Present Appeal May Be Allowed To Be Withdrawn With A Liberty To Revive The Same In The Event That The Declaration Made Under The Aforesaid Scheme Is Rejected, Withdrawn, Cancelled Or Not Accepted By The Competent Authority For Any Reason Whatsoever.

Section 250Section 91(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy

BUCHER HYDRAULICS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 799/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmabucher Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Plot No. 6, Sector-5, Imt Circle-4(2), Manesar, Gurugaon, New Delhi Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs5991H

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mathew Jacob, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 91(1)Section 91(4)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL

AJAY SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 68(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1531/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshajay Sharma, Vs. Ito, H. No. 164, Sector-A, Ward-68(1), Pocket-C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Actps6995D

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Tyagi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Poojan Rana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 91(1)Section 91(4)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S LVMH WATCH & JEWELERY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2748/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. M/S. Lvmh Watch & Circle-4(1), Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi International Trade Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N M/S. Lvmh Watch & Vs. Dcit, Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(1), International Trade New Delhi Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N Acit, Vs. M/S. Lvmh Watch & Circle-4(1), Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi International Trade Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N Assessee By : Shri Tapas Ram Mishra, Adv Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Ar Shri Sahil Malhotra, Ar Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Ram Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 91(1)Section 91(4)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

LVMH WATCH & JEWELLERY INDI (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4022/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. M/S. Lvmh Watch & Circle-4(1), Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi International Trade Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N M/S. Lvmh Watch & Vs. Dcit, Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(1), International Trade New Delhi Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N Acit, Vs. M/S. Lvmh Watch & Circle-4(1), Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi International Trade Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N Assessee By : Shri Tapas Ram Mishra, Adv Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Ar Shri Sahil Malhotra, Ar Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Ram Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 91(1)Section 91(4)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LVMH WATCH & JEWELLERY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3643/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. M/S. Lvmh Watch & Circle-4(1), Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi International Trade Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N M/S. Lvmh Watch & Vs. Dcit, Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(1), International Trade New Delhi Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N Acit, Vs. M/S. Lvmh Watch & Circle-4(1), Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi International Trade Tower, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Block-F, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl7814N Assessee By : Shri Tapas Ram Mishra, Adv Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Ar Shri Sahil Malhotra, Ar Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Ram Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 91(1)Section 91(4)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BNAGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-7 , BANGALORE

Appeals is partly allowed for statistical purposes as in earlier orders of this Tribunal

ITA 3115/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. and Sri Sandeep Huilgol, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 37(1)Section 90Section 90(1)(b)Section 91

also merit attention in this regard. Section 90(1)(a)(i) uses the expression “income on which have been paid both income tax....”. Section 91(1) uses the expression “If any person who is resident in India in any previous year proves that in respect of his income which accrued

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 492/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. andFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 37(1)Section 90Section 91

also merit attention in this regard. Section\n90(1)(a)(i) uses the expression “income on which have been paid both\nincome tax....”. Section 91(1) uses the expression “If any person who is\nresident in India in any previous year proves that in respect of his income\nwhich accrued ... also merit attention in this regard. Section\n90(1)(a)(i) uses the expression “income on which have been paid both\nincome tax....”. Section 91(1) uses the expression “If any person who is\nresident in India in any previous year proves that in respect of his income\nwhich accrued

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

Appeals is allowed

ITA 2851/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14
Section 37(1)Section 90Section 91

also merit attention in this regard. Section\n90(1)(a)(i) uses the expression \"income on which have been paid both\nincome tax....”. Section 91(1) uses the expression \"If any person who is\nresident in India in any previous year proves that in respect of his income\nwhich accrued ... also merit attention in this regard. Section\n90(1)(a)(i) uses the expression “income on which have been paid both\nincome tax....”. Section 91(1) uses the expression “If any person who is\nresident in India in any previous year proves that in respect of his income\nwhich accrued

M/S WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

Appeals is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes as in earlier orders of this Tribunal

ITA 222/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. and Sri Sandeep Huilgol, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 37(1)Section 90Section 91

also merit attention in this regard. Section\n90(1)(a)(i) uses the expression “income on which have been paid both\nincome tax....”. Section 91(1) uses the expression “If any person who is\nresident in India in any previous year proves that in respect of his income\nwhich accrued ... also merit attention in this regard. Section\n90(1)(a)(i) uses the expression “income on which have been paid both\nincome tax....". Section 91(1) uses the expression “If any person who is\nresident in India in any previous year proves that in respect of his income\nwhich accrued

ATOMSTROYEXPORT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)CIRCLE -1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 575/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 44B

assessee should not have been tax under section 44BBB of the Act but should have been taxed as fee for technical service under section 91(1)(7) of the Act. The ld. DR in this regard presented a detailed written submission and also arguments during the course of hearing

M/S. INVENDIS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 986/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 90Section 91

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S