“ double taxation ”

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

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.

310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court

259

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT

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).

239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court

243

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

CIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust

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.

144 ITR 146 · 1983 · High Court

124

Assessing Officer (International Taxation) v. Nestle SA

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.

458 ITR 756 · 2023 · Supreme Court

122

Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO

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.

135 Taxmann.com 358 · 2022 · ITAT

109

CIT v. Havells India Ltd.

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.

352 ITR 376 · 2013 · High Court

ITA 1045/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

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

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

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

Mr. Waseem Ulla Khan, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1956/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 115BSection 142Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 44ASection 68

sales recorded in the books are held as genuine business receipts, then addition of cash deposited in the bank account once again results in double taxation. Mere because the cash were deposited during the demonetization period does not make it tainted. The assessee has duly explained the source

M/S Sri Saravana Tyraders(Firm), Coimbatore vs. Iito, Non Corporate Ward-1(5), Coimbatore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 380/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.380/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) M/S. Sri Saravana Traders (Firm) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S.F.No.54/2, Non Corporate Ward 1(5) Pichanur Village, Coimbatore 641 018 Navakkarai Post, Coimbatore 641 105. [Pan: Achfs 2783D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D. Gowda, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

business receipts during the demonetization is liable to be rejected. Assessee’s other contention was that the addition of unexplained money resulted in double taxation because the said amount was already part of the turnover disclosed. The ld.CIT(A) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to ascertain whether the business turnover ... accept the arguments of the assessee the addition of unexplained money which is already a part of the turnover would result in double taxation. Further, going by the explanation of the assessee that the cash deposited in SBNs during demonetization period is out of sale proceeds and this issue stands

Mr. Haris Muhammad Sait, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2039/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V, ACIT (DR)

disagree with the findings of the learned CIT-A. We, accordingly, direct the AO to delete the addition made, as it would result in double taxation of the same income. In conclusion, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT-A and direct the AO to delete the addition

Beachwood Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

ITA 5515/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

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

ITA 5514/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

Beachwood Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5513/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

Beachwood Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

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

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA and

ITA 5512/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

Beachwood Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5511/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

Beachwood Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA and Shri K.S. KarthikeyanFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR

ITA 5510/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

that cash receipt, cash expenditure was noted. Addition of such cash expenditure in the hands of the assessee would tantamount to double taxation, firstly as cash income in the hands of Mr. Vikas Oberoi in the settlement proceedings and again in the hands of the assessee as cash expenditure

Beachwood Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA and Shri K.S. KarthikeyanFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR

ITA 1098/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Sri Arumuga Cottspin Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The ACIT, CC-I, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1098/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Sri Arumuga Cottspin Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम Sf No.919/6, No.2, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-1, / Vs. Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-642 104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-5065-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) - Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

purchases, production and sales. The sales were already offered to income in the Profit & Loss Account and taxing the realization proceeds would lead to double taxation which is against the principles of taxation. Reference was made to various judicial decisions to support its case. 4.3 The assessee further submitted that ... have already been offered by the assessee to tax and taxing the same again as income from other sources u/s 69A would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. 8. It could also be seen that the returns of income for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were scrutinized

Sri Mahasakthi Mills Limited, Coimbatore vs. The ACIT, CC-I, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1059/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1059/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Mahasakthi Mills Limited Acit बनाम/ No.95/13, Vyshnav Building, Central Circle-1, Opp. Kg Cinemas, Race Course Road Coimbatore. Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-2111-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 69A

purchases, production and sales. The sales are already offered to income in the Profit & Loss Account and taxing the realization proceeds would lead to double taxation which is against the principles of taxation. Reference was made to various judicial decisions to support its case. 4.2 On the issue to advances ... have already been offered by the assessee to tax and taxing the same again as income from other sources u/s 69A would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. 8. As far as the advances to sister concerns are concerned, we find that the same has been sourced

Overseas Beverages Private Limited, Goa vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1058/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Overseas Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ #11, Idc Honda Industrial Estate, Central Circle-1, Vs. Sattari, Goa-403 530. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-5591-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69A

earlier years. The sales made to them was already offered to tax in earlier years and therefore, taxing the same again would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. The assessee also assailed applicability of provisions of Sec.69A to the aforesaid receipts on the ground that these provisions could ... fact that the assessee has already offered a sum of Rs.1 Crores as ‘business income’. Taxing the same again u/s 69A would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. The Ld. AR has also placed on record copy of cash book for whole of the year (Page Nos.12-13

Nethravathi Distilleries P.Ltd, Kunigal vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

ITA 1057/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Nethravathi Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ #1, Bangalore Main Road, Central Circle-1, Avargere Village, Kunigal-572 130 Coimbatore. Vs. Karnataka. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-6939-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69A

sales made in earlier years. The sales turnover was offered to tax in earlier years and taxing the same again would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. The assessee submitted that the field enquiries were conducted after more than 6 years when Shri Sunil was not traceable ... sales in earlier years. Such sales have been offered to tax in earlier years and therefore, taxing the same again would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. These three entities had outstanding balance since 31- 03-2013 and the circumstances under which the dues have ultimately been recovered from

Western Digital Technologies Inc, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incomer Tax, International Taxation, Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 344/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)

Section 234ASection 270A

various stages of the business and sales processes classifies it as a Dependent Agency PE of the assessee in India under the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, the income attributable to these operations is taxable in India. 6.4 The AO in the light of the above proposed ... learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 12.2 Before addressing the specific issue, it is essential to refer to the relevant clauses of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the USA. Article 5 of the DTAA addresses the concept of permanent establishment (PE), with Clauses 4 and 5 specifically

Knoldus Software LLP, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1847/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2019-20 Knoldus Software Llp, Vs. Acit, Circle 49(1), 10/19, West Patel Nagar, Delhi New Delhi – 110 008 (Pan: Aamfk0433H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37(7)

computation of income and therefore, the same cannot be again added to the total income of the appellant as the same will tantamount to double taxation. 2. Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and the principles of natural justice to the extent above

Kamal Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3401/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

ITA 1221/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

assessee for computing its tax liability. He submitted that the AO by adding gross profit again to the income of the assessee has made double taxation which is unsustainable and unjust in the eyes of law. He submitted that the AO has made the addition by relying on the statements

Kamal Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

ITA 1220/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Kamal Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

ITA 1219/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Kamal Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.