← All Phrases

“double taxation”

MiscellaneousGeneralGeneral4,703 judgments

LAL CHAND CHOUDHARY,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelal Chand Choudhary Acit/ Dcit, Circle, S-8, Transport Nagar, Barmer Jaisalmer - 345001 Pan No. Aaopc 6671 K Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

return of income and secondly, the AO has made further addition by treating the same as bogus transactions which certainly amount to double taxation of same income which is not permissible under law. In the present case, the assessee has already offered the income derived out of the sales

SHRI RAM KRUPA MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 315/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2021-22

Section 154Section 154(3)Section 195Section 200ASection 90Section 90(4)

deductible on dividend payment to Non- Resident Shareholders at higher rate of 20% instead of the beneficial rate prescribed under the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Shri Ram Krupa Medicare Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT, AY- 2021-22 3 4. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that

THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1821/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Bhardwaj Sheshadri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

rent on building for Rs. 15,57,093/- shown in profit & loss account under the head other income is misplaced and amounts to double taxation. Accordingly, the disallowances of other income under section 80P(2) of the Act to the extent of Rent on building

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6271/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlate Gyan Prakash Gupta Vs. Ito Through Legal Heir Raj Ward 10(4) Kumari Gupta New Delhi Plot No.6 & 7, Defence Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adupg 2697 N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Gupta (AY 2015-16) consideration on sale of shares as his income exempt under section 10(38) of the Act, the addition amounts to double taxation of the same income. 16. That the addition was made grossly indulging in surmises without bringing on any direct evidence against the assessee, only

NARAYAN BHAGYACHANDRA KHATRI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

ITA 254/NAG/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri Acit, Amravati Circle, Amravati Flat No. Sp-2/102, Streling Springdale Vs Aayakarbhavan, Near Dps School, Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440013. Maharashtra – 440006. [Pan: Aaccg4441J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 234ASection 234CSection 254(1)Section 69

that cash deposit is more than the sales; hence there is no question of unexplained investment. Addition on presumption is amount to double taxation. The observation of AO that cash deposit is increase exceptionally, comparing to earlier years is without considering the increase in the turnover in both the years

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the\n

ITA 1783/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: The Tribunal Raising The\Nfollowing Grounds Of Appeal For Ay 2008-09 & More Or Less Similar\Ngrounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised In The Appeals For Other A.Ys. As\Nwell:\N\N“1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The National Faceless\Nappeal Centre, Delhi [The Ld. Cit(A)] Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Refund\Nof Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (Ddt) Paid By The Appellant\Namounting To Rs.94,81,687.\N\N2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred\Nin Following The Special Bench Decision Of Mumbai Tribunal In The Case Of\Ndcit Vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (Ita No 6997/Mum/2019) Upholding That\Nddt Is A Tax On Profits Of The Domestic Company & Not On The\Nshareholder.\N\N2.

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

behalf of the shareholder.\n\n3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin holding that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') is not\napplicable in the current scenario as DTAA does not get trigger when\ndomestic company pays DDT under section ... Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) u/s\n237 of the Act claiming refund of DDT paid/deposited in excess of the\nrate prescribed under the India-Netherlands Double Taxation\nAvoidance Agreement ('DTAA') along with interest u/s 244A of the Act.\nThe Ld. AO rejected the claim made by the assessee and passed

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1782/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

behalf of the shareholder. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') is not applicable in the current scenario as DTAA does not get trigger when domestic company pays DDT under section ... Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) u/s 237 of the Act claiming refund of DDT paid/deposited in excess of the rate prescribed under the India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') along with interest u/s 244A of the Act. The Ld. AO rejected the claim made by the assessee and passed

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1781/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

behalf of the shareholder. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') is not applicable in the current scenario as DTAA does not get trigger when domestic company pays DDT under section ... Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) u/s 237 of the Act claiming refund of DDT paid/deposited in excess of the rate prescribed under the India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') along with interest u/s 244A of the Act. The Ld. AO rejected the claim made by the assessee and passed

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1780/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

behalf of the shareholder. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') is not applicable in the current scenario as DTAA does not get trigger when domestic company pays DDT under section ... Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) u/s 237 of the Act claiming refund of DDT paid/deposited in excess of the rate prescribed under the India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') along with interest u/s 244A of the Act. The Ld. AO rejected the claim made by the assessee and passed

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the\n

ITA 1779/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Tribunal Raising The\Nfollowing Grounds Of Appeal For Ay 2008-09 & More Or Less Similar\Ngrounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised In The Appeals For Other A.Ys. As\Nwell:\Nita No(S). 1776 To 1783/Kol/2024\N Assessment Year(S) 2008-09 To 2015-16\Nphilips India Limited.\N1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The National Faceless\Nappeal Centre, Delhi [The Ld. Cit(A)] Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Refund\Nof Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (Ddt) Paid By The Appellant\Namounting To Rs.94,81,687.\N2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred\Nin Following The Special Bench Decision Of Mumbai Tribunal In The Case Of\Ndcit Vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (Ita No 6997/Mum/2019) Upholding That\Nddt Is A Tax On Profits Of The Domestic Company & Not On The\Nshareholder.\N2.

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

behalf of the shareholder.\n3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin holding that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') is not\napplicable in the current scenario as DTAA does not get trigger when\ndomestic company pays DDT under Section ... Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) u/s\n237 of the Act claiming refund of DDT paid/deposited in excess of the\nrate prescribed under the India-Netherlands Double Taxation\nAvoidance Agreement ('DTAA') along with interest u/s 244A of the Act.\nThe Ld. AO rejected the claim made by the assessee and passed

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the\n

ITA 1778/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Tribunal Raising The\Nfollowing Grounds Of Appeal For Ay 2008-09 & More Or Less Similar\Ngrounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised In The Appeals For Other A.Ys. As\Nwell:\Npage | 2\Nita No(S). 1776 To 1783/Kol/2024\N Assessment Year(S) 2008-09 To 2015-16\Nphilips India Limited.\N“1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The National Faceless\Nappeal Centre, Delhi [The Ld. Cit(A)] Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Refund\Nof Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (Ddt) Paid By The Appellant\Namounting To Rs.94,81,687.\N2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred\Nin Following The Special Bench Decision Of Mumbai Tribunal In The Case Of\Ndcit Vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (Ita No 6997/Mum/2019) Upholding That\Nddt Is A Tax On Profits Of The Domestic Company & Not On The\Nshareholder.\N2.

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

behalf of the shareholder.\n3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin holding that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') is not\napplicable in the current scenario as DTAA does not get trigger when\ndomestic company pays DDT under section ... Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) u/s\n237 of the Act claiming refund of DDT paid/deposited in excess of the\nrate prescribed under the India-Netherlands Double Taxation\nAvoidance Agreement ('DTAA') along with interest u/s 244A of the Act.\nThe Ld. AO rejected the claim made by the assessee and passed

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1777/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

behalf of the shareholder. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') is not applicable in the current scenario as DTAA does not get trigger when domestic company pays DDT under section ... Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) u/s 237 of the Act claiming refund of DDT paid/deposited in excess of the rate prescribed under the India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') along with interest u/s 244A of the Act. The Ld. AO rejected the claim made by the assessee and passed

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the\n

ITA 1776/KOL/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: The Tribunal Raising The\Nfollowing Grounds Of Appeal For Ay 2008-09 & More Or Less Similar\Ngrounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised In The Appeals For Other A.Ys. As\Nwell:\Nita No(S). 1776 To 1783/Kol/2024\N Assessment Year(S) 2008-09 To 2015-16\Nphilips India Limited.\N“1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The National Faceless\Nappeal Centre, Delhi [The Ld. Cit(A)] Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Refund\Nof Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (Ddt) Paid By The Appellant\Namounting To Rs.94,81,687.\N2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred\Nin Following The Special Bench Decision Of Mumbai Tribunal In The Case Of\Ndcit Vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (Ita No 6997/Mum/2019) Upholding That\Nddt Is A Tax On Profits Of The Domestic Company & Not On The\Nshareholder.\N2.

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

behalf of the shareholder.\n3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin holding that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') is not\napplicable in the current scenario as DTAA does not get trigger when\ndomestic company pays DDT under Section ... Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) u/s\n237 of the Act claiming refund of DDT paid/deposited in excess of the\nrate prescribed under the India-Netherlands Double Taxation\nAvoidance Agreement ('DTAA') along with interest u/s 244A of the Act.\nThe Ld. AO rejected the claim made by the assessee and passed

ALAINA BULLIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 916/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18] M/S Alaina Buillions Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle, 1St Floor, Panna Bhawan, Nel Ghaziabad, Room No.229, 2Nd Vs Gali, Sarafa Bazar, Meerut, Floor, Cgo-1, Hapur Chungi, Uttar Pradesh-250002 Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan-Aanca8659D Appellant Respondent

Section 153A

erred on facts and in law in confirming the above addition of Rs.38,50,49,240 - as the same has resulted in double taxation by treating sales recorded in the books of accounts as unexplained deposit u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of I.T. Act. 4. That

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. ALAINA BULLIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MEERUT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1461/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18] M/S Alaina Buillions Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle, 1St Floor, Panna Bhawan, Nel Ghaziabad, Room No.229, 2Nd Vs Gali, Sarafa Bazar, Meerut, Floor, Cgo-1, Hapur Chungi, Uttar Pradesh-250002 Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan-Aanca8659D Appellant Respondent

Section 153A

erred on facts and in law in confirming the above addition of Rs.38,50,49,240 - as the same has resulted in double taxation by treating sales recorded in the books of accounts as unexplained deposit u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of I.T. Act. 4. That

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. ALAINA BULLIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MEERUT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1460/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18] M/S Alaina Buillions Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle, 1St Floor, Panna Bhawan, Nel Ghaziabad, Room No.229, 2Nd Vs Gali, Sarafa Bazar, Meerut, Floor, Cgo-1, Hapur Chungi, Uttar Pradesh-250002 Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan-Aanca8659D Appellant Respondent

Section 153A

erred on facts and in law in confirming the above addition of Rs.38,50,49,240 - as the same has resulted in double taxation by treating sales recorded in the books of accounts as unexplained deposit u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of I.T. Act. 4. That

AMBE MARBLE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4722/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ambe Marble Ito Ward 36(1) Delhi New C/O B-50 Lgf South Vs Delhi Extension Part-Ii, New Delhi Pan No. Abbfa5852G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68/69 of the Act which cannot be applied in respect of the income which is already being taxed and amounts to a double taxation. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in law or on facts

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 5560/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

relevant to FY 2022-23 and therefore, taxing the same on accrual basis in the year under appeal would tantamount to double taxation of same income and thus, it is requested that the addition made deserves to be deleted. He also drew our attention to the fact that the identical ... same was offered for tax in AY 2023-24 therefore, if the same is taxed in the year under appeal, it would be double taxation of income. Looking to these facts, we find force in the arguments of the assessee that an income should not be taxed twice. Once

SHREE JADEYA SHANKARLING URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HUBBALLI

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

ITA 2893/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh Magavi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 269SSection 68

customers was already admitted as income and if the cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. It is also on record that the assessee

POREDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY,KADIRI vs. ITO, WARD-1, HINDUPUR

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

ITA 1862/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1862/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kadiri. Ward-1, Pan: Bibpr4972G Hindupur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Nvv Gopalal Krishna, Ca Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 09/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Kadiri (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22/10/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.” 2018-19. Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

submitted that if the entire deposits in the bank account of the assessee are treated as income of the assessee, it would result in double taxation of the same income, as the sale proceeds have already been accounted for by the respective concerns in their returns of income. In support ... offered the same in their respective returns of income. The addition of the same amount in the hands of the assessee will amount to double taxation. Therefore, in our considered opinion, these aspects require proper verification at the end of the Ld. AO along with examination of the additional evidences

Showing 1–20 of 4,703 · Page 1 of 236

...