← All Phrases

“double taxation”

MiscellaneousGeneralGeneral4,703 judgments

The decision most relied on for double taxation is DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV (382 ITR 114), cited in 325 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on double taxation

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT
239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court
243
citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

Raymond Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
86 ITD 791 · 2003 · ITAT
154
citing judgments

For services to qualify as 'Fees for Technical Services' or 'Fees for Included Services' under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs), they must 'make available' technical knowledge, experience, skill, or processes to the recipient, enabling them to apply such expertise independently.

CIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust
144 ITR 146 · 1983 · High Court
124
citing judgments

Sections 4 and 5 of the Income Tax Act, which define total income and chargeability, are subject to Section 90, meaning that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the Act's provisions in case of a conflict.

Assessing Officer (International Taxation) v. Nestle SA
458 ITR 756 · 2023 · Supreme Court
122
citing judgments

The benefit of a Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is available only upon notification by the Government. A notification under section 90(1) is a necessary and mandatory condition for giving effect to a DTAA or any protocol that alters existing law.

Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO
135 Taxmann.com 358 · 2022 · ITAT
109
citing judgments

The filing of Form 67 for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is a directory requirement, not mandatory. Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC due to delay in filing this form. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override domestic law.

CIT v. Havells India Ltd.
352 ITR 376 · 2013 · High Court
97
citing judgments

For royalty income, especially in the context of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA), the 'source of income' is the determinative factor for taxability, rather than merely the 'source of receipt'.

Judgments citing double taxation

Sbpl Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 685/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.685/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sbpl Infrastructure Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aaccs9014M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 16/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 13.02.2024 & Pertains To A.Y.2014-15. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 94 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That Shri Manoj Sharma, Chief Financial Officer Of The Appellant Company, Who Was Entrusted With The Job Of Looking

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 14A

Dividend income i.e. Rs. 41,40,035/- which has been declared in the return of income and tax has been paid thereby resulting in double taxation. 7. The Tax Authorities ought to have appreciated the provisions of Sec. 14A of the Act refers to disallowance of expenditure which was otherwise

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Jkj Jewellers (Hcm), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 420/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, West Vs. Kolkata-700007, Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakfj7956Q Co No. 26/Kol/2024 (Arising In Ita No. 420/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700007, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 143Section 68

Profit & Loss account and the addition thereof u/s 68 without reducing it from the same and without rejecting books of account would amount to double taxation which is not permissible. 2. The Ld.AO has disputed the genuineness of sales related to the period from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 i.e. just prior ... figure of cash sales and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act without rejecting the books of accounts as it would amount to double taxation of the same amount. In defense of his arguments the ld. AR relied on the decisions of co-ordinate Benches in the case

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 463/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

plan. Hence, the said amount is in the nature of deposit and not expenditure. (ii) The assessee’s contention that disallowance will lead to double taxation as mine closure charges forms part of selling price of lignite is not acceptable as by simply filing the petition with RERC for determination ... Transfer price which includes component of mine closure charges, is not enough to hold that by disallowing the mine closure cost there is no double taxation here. 52. We are agreed with the contentions of the assessee that the liability discussed and mentioned (supra) are statutory liabilities and are unavoidable

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 462/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

plan. Hence, the said amount is in the nature of deposit and not expenditure. (ii) The assessee’s contention that disallowance will lead to double taxation as mine closure charges forms part of selling price of lignite is not acceptable as by simply filing the petition with RERC for determination ... Transfer price which includes component of mine closure charges, is not enough to hold that by disallowing the mine closure cost there is no double taxation here. 52. We are agreed with the contentions of the assessee that the liability discussed and mentioned (supra) are statutory liabilities and are unavoidable

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 461/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

plan. Hence, the said amount is in the nature of deposit and not expenditure. (ii) The assessee’s contention that disallowance will lead to double taxation as mine closure charges forms part of selling price of lignite is not acceptable as by simply filing the petition with RERC for determination ... Transfer price which includes component of mine closure charges, is not enough to hold that by disallowing the mine closure cost there is no double taxation here. 52. We are agreed with the contentions of the assessee that the liability discussed and mentioned (supra) are statutory liabilities and are unavoidable

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 460/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

plan. Hence, the said amount is in the nature of deposit and not expenditure. (ii) The assessee's contention that disallowance will lead to double taxation as mine closure charges forms part of selling price of lignite is not acceptable as by simply filing the petition with RERC for determination ... Transfer price which includes component of mine closure charges, is not enough to hold that by disallowing the mine closure cost there is no double taxation here. 52. We are agreed with the contentions of the assessee that the liability discussed and mentioned (supra) are statutory liabilities and are unavoidable

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 455/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

plan. Hence, the said amount is in the nature of deposit and not expenditure. (ii) The assessee’s contention that disallowance will lead to double taxation as mine closure charges forms part of selling price of lignite is not acceptable as by simply filing the petition with RERC for determination ... Transfer price which includes component of mine closure charges, is not enough to hold that by disallowing the mine closure cost there is no double taxation here. 52. We are agreed with the contentions of the assessee that the liability discussed and mentioned (supra) are statutory liabilities and are unavoidable

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 454/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

plan. Hence, the said amount is in the nature of deposit and not expenditure. (ii) The assessee’s contention that disallowance will lead to double taxation as mine closure charges forms part of selling price of lignite is not acceptable as by simply filing the petition with RERC for determination ... Transfer price which includes component of mine closure charges, is not enough to hold that by disallowing the mine closure cost there is no double taxation here. 52. We are agreed with the contentions of the assessee that the liability discussed and mentioned (supra) are statutory liabilities and are unavoidable

DCIT, Circle 6, Jaipur, Ncrb, Jpr vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 453/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

plan. Hence, the said amount is in the nature of deposit and not expenditure. (ii) The assessee’s contention that disallowance will lead to double taxation as mine closure charges forms part of selling price of lignite is not acceptable as by simply filing the petition with RERC for determination ... Transfer price which includes component of mine closure charges, is not enough to hold that by disallowing the mine closure cost there is no double taxation here. 52. We are agreed with the contentions of the assessee that the liability discussed and mentioned (supra) are statutory liabilities and are unavoidable

DCIT, Circle-6 Jaipur, Ncrb, Jaipur vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar Jpr

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 452/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

plan. Hence, the said amount is in the nature of deposit and not expenditure. (ii) The assessee’s contention that disallowance will lead to double taxation as mine closure charges forms part of selling price of lignite is not acceptable as by simply filing the petition with RERC for determination ... Transfer price which includes component of mine closure charges, is not enough to hold that by disallowing the mine closure cost there is no double taxation here. 52. We are agreed with the contentions of the assessee that the liability discussed and mentioned (supra) are statutory liabilities and are unavoidable

Prukalpa Sankar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(5), Bengaluru

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2100/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Karanjot Singh K & Devashish JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90

Page 3 of 6 67 was filed before the intimation under Section 143(1), dated 08/06/2020. 6.1 The ld. AR further argued that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore entitles the assessee to FTC on doubly taxed income. The treaty provisions should prevail over domestic

Prukalpa Sankar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(5), Bengaluru

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2099/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Karanjot Singh K & Devashish JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90

Page 3 of 6 67 was filed before the intimation under Section 143(1), dated 08/06/2020. 6.1 The ld. AR further argued that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore entitles the assessee to FTC on doubly taxed income. The treaty provisions should prevail over domestic

L'Oreal India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 4577/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarl'Oreal India Private V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai Maharashtra 400 013, बनाम Income Tax- 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacl0738K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth Respondent By : Ms. Neena Jeph (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Prabhash Shankar [Α.Μ.] This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Tpo' For Short) Pursuant To The Direction Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp' For Short), Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Relevant To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2020-21.The Assessee Has Challenged The Grounds Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment On Account Of Advertisement, Marketing & Promotion (Amp) Expenses. Following Are The Grounds Raised By The Assessee: Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

Page 1 ITA No. 4577/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP

Nand Kishore Singh, Barabanki vs. Assessement Unit, Income Tax Department, Faceless

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

ITA 674/LKW/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Nand Kishore Singh V. Assessment Unit Jarmapur Income Tax Department Post Barauli Malik Lucknow Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ataps3227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Jain, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 270ASection 68

made in grounds of appeal and thereby confirming additions/disallowance of Rs.2000938.00 referred in statement of facts submitted to Ld. Appellate Officer, which tantamount to double taxation of same income and also non consideration of the facts that such income has already been included in the sales and therefore should

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Sony India Software Centre Pvt Ltd, Bellandur, Bangalore

ITA 1550/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 28Section 40a

business and considering depreciation costs on these free of cost of assets as operating expenses while computing operating profit margin under TP, amounts to double taxation? 2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in law to hold that reimbursement made ... warranted, which is already subject to tax pursuant to APA and no further addition is necessary, otherwise it amounts to double taxation. Accordingly, we allow this ground taken by the assessee.’ 19. Decision of Honorable Supreme court in case of CIT V Mahindra & Mahindra Limited [2018] 93 taxmann.com

Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited (Formerly Known As Eurofins Advinus Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1114/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

maintenance charges amounting to Rs. 49.17.872 were not chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income tax Act. 1961/ Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and provisions of section 195 are not applicable. 5.2. The learned assessing officer and the CIT(A), NFAC erred in not considering the judgement ... applicable, payments made to non-residents were not Chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961/ Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and consequently the ITA Nos.1113 & 1114/Bang/2023 Page 6 of 18 disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of amounting

M/S. Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited(Formerly Know As Eurofins Advinus Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1113/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

maintenance charges amounting to Rs. 49.17.872 were not chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income tax Act. 1961/ Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and provisions of section 195 are not applicable. 5.2. The learned assessing officer and the CIT(A), NFAC erred in not considering the judgement ... applicable, payments made to non-residents were not Chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961/ Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and consequently the ITA Nos.1113 & 1114/Bang/2023 Page 6 of 18 disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of amounting

Gurpartap Singh Kairon, Chandigarh, India vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2(1), Chandigarh, India

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 561/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.”

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal & Ms. Ashisha Mittal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

partnership firm "M/s Capital Estates". 2. Whether upholding of addition of Rs.5,97,172/- in the hands of the Assessee tantamount to double taxation, and is therefore, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. Whether the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to documentary evidence ... Narayan Brijlal Ltd. (2017) 244 taxmann 14 (Cal). 12. It was submitted that upholding the addition of Rs, 5,97,172/- will tantamount to double taxation as the M/s Capital Estate has already included the rental income in the Income Tax return filed and therefore the same has already been

The Buldhana District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Buldhana vs. DCIT, Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)

assessee, while concluding his arguments, submitted that in view of the above factual position, the addition be deleted, as it will to double taxation. 13. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relied on the order of Assessing Officer and supported to the order passed by the CIT(A). He submitted that ... that excess deduction claimed in the financial statements was substantially higher than the corresponding write back. So, again taxing the same would lead to double taxation which cannot be countenanced by any means. The learned CIT(A) had made an artificial distinction for not abiding by the order

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Circle I, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

business. Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT C. It is submitted that the addition of same amount in the hands of two assessee causing double taxation is bad in law. D. In case of Gordhan, Delhi Vs Appellant ITA No 811/Del/2015 it was held by ITAT, Delhi Bench no addition