← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

ITA 1595/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1488 & 1489/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Periyasamy Anbunathan, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Thottakurichi Post, Karur-639 113. [Pan: Ahmρα 6511 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1529, 1536, 1595 & 1596/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & Cross-Objection Nos.45 & 46/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos.1595 & 1596/Chny/2025] निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Periyasamy Anbunathan, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Thottakurichi Post, Karur-639 113. [Pan: Ahmρα 6511 H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.J.K. Reddy, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Department By : Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

mentioned in the impugned order that, the time limit stood extended as a consequence of request for Exchange of information under Double Taxation avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax matters (MAC) made by the AO with the foreign competent authority, but according

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are

ITA 1536/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

mentioned in the impugned order that, the time limit stood extended as a consequence of request for Exchange of information under Double Taxation avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax matters (MAC) made by the AO with the foreign competent authority, but according ... assessed to tax in the hands of Shri NRV and therefore addition of the said amount in the hands of the assessee amounted to double taxation of the same. The Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly noted to have confirmed the addition of remaining sum of Rs.26

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1529/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

mentioned in the impugned order that, the time limit stood extended as a consequence of request for Exchange of information under Double Taxation avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax matters (MAC) made by the AO with the foreign competent authority, but according ... assessed to tax in the hands of Shri NRV and therefore addition of the said amount in the hands of the assessee amounted to double taxation of the same. The Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly noted to have confirmed the addition of remaining sum of Rs.26

Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1489/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

mentioned in the impugned order that, the time limit stood extended as a consequence of request for Exchange of information under Double Taxation avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax matters (MAC) made by the AO with the foreign competent authority, but according ... assessed to tax in the hands of Shri NRV and therefore addition of the said amount in the hands of the assessee amounted to double taxation of the same. The Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly noted to have confirmed the addition of remaining sum of Rs.26

Periasamy Anbunathan, Karur vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1488/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

mentioned in the impugned order that, the time limit stood extended as a consequence of request for Exchange of information under Double Taxation avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax matters (MAC) made by the AO with the foreign competent authority, but according ... assessed to tax in the hands of Shri NRV and therefore addition of the said amount in the hands of the assessee amounted to double taxation of the same. The Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly noted to have confirmed the addition of remaining sum of Rs.26

M/S. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7255/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Section 234CSection 234C(1)(b)Section 80M

amount M/s. Rallis India Ltd. already offered to tax under the head “profits and gains from business and profession” which has resulted in double taxation of the same amount of dividend income. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the findings of the AO which are contained in para

M/S. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7254/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Section 234CSection 234C(1)(b)Section 80M

amount M/s. Rallis India Ltd. already offered to tax under the head “profits and gains from business and profession” which has resulted in double taxation of the same amount of dividend income. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the findings of the AO which are contained in para

Sharda Chambers Premise Co Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6554/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. H.N. MotiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. Vikas Chandra, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

further addition would result in impermissible double therefore, any further addition would result in impermissible double therefore, any further addition would result in impermissible double taxation. Ground No. 2, relating to the addition of taxation. Ground No. 2, relating to the addition

Virendra Kumar Mandot, Sadar Bazar Sailana Ratlam vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO-1, Ratlam

ITA 382/IND/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

treated as unexplained credits. Treating the same receipts as unexplained under Section 68, after already considering them as sales, would amount to impermissible double taxation, which is against settled principles of law. Conclusion In view of the RBI guidelines, regular books of account, and binding judicial precedents, the addition

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 1864/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

taxation of both the capital (cost of goods sold) and the revenue (profit) components of the transaction, further, such an approach leads to double taxation of the same trading cycle and is therefore not justified. We find support from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, as relied

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 1858/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

taxation of both the capital (cost of goods sold) and the revenue (profit) components of the transaction, further, such an approach leads to double taxation of the same trading cycle and is therefore not justified. We find support from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, as relied

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 1856/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

taxation of both the capital (cost of goods sold) and the revenue (profit) components of the transaction, further, such an approach leads to double taxation of the same trading cycle and is therefore not justified. We find support from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, as relied

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 1855/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

taxation of both the capital (cost of goods sold) and the revenue (profit) components of the transaction, further, such an approach leads to double taxation of the same trading cycle and is therefore not justified. We find support from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, as relied

Deupty Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anand Rathi Commodities Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5983/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

reversal of a provision earlier disallowed and did not constitute a fresh claim of bad debts, and that disallowing the same resulted in double taxation. It was further submitted that the loss on operation / client claim was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and was supported ... 5983/Mum/2025 & Co No.325/Mum/2025 Anand Rathi Commodities Limited creation and that the disallowance thereof in the reassessment would lead to impermissible double taxation. The Ld. CIT(A) also deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,10,75,000/- holding the same to be allowable. 8. Aggrieved by the relief granted

Myth Media Solution Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh vs. AO, Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Noida, U.P

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

ITA 2280/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Kumar Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 37(1)

abnormally high Gross Profit/Net Profit ratio, inconsistent with the Appellant's historical performance and industry norms, indicating an arbitrary and unrealistic assessment. 7. Double Taxation on Same Transactions: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that TDS was deducted and deposited on payments to some suppliers, accepted by the Income ... Department, and reflected in their Form 26AS. Disallowing the corresponding expenditure amounts to double taxation on the same transaction, which is unjust and contrary to law. 8. Additional Evidence: The Appellant craves leave to submit additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, including delivery

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad vs. Saluja Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3589/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahaydcit, Ghaziabad, Vs. Saluja Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 201, First Floor, A-1, Plot No. 1, Delhi Meerut Road, Cgo Complex, Hapur Chungi, New Arya Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Up-201002 Up-201001 (Pan: Aaucs6233L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

tune of Rs. 49,00,000/- (Rs.45,00,000 + Rs.4,00,000) was again added by the Assessing Officer, which amounts to double taxation. Since, the above amount of Rs.49,00,000/- was disallowed by Assessing Officer in original assessment, therefore the same amount of Rs. 49,00,000/- should

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1084/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate Represented by Department : Dr. Narendra Kumar NFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 11/11/2025
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

Infradev Pvt Ltd is already accounted in the total turnover adopted for tax computation. Adding these sales again as unexplained income is tantamount to double taxation. Supreme court has held in the case of Laxmichand Baijnath v. CIT; 35 ITR 416, that amount credited in business books can normally

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1083/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1083/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Industries आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1084/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hydeabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 2

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

Infradev Pvt Ltd is already accounted in the total turnover adopted for tax computation. Adding these sales again as unexplained income is tantamount to double taxation. Supreme court has held in the case of Laxmichand Baijnath v. CIT; 35 ITR 416, that amount credited in business books can normally

Suvodeep Pyne, Garia vs. ITO, Ward 63(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

grounds no. 2,3,4 of the appeal are allowed.” 9. The relevant extracts of Article 23(4) of the Treaty on Relief From Double Taxation is reproduced below for ready reference: “ In India , double taxation shall be eliminated as follows: Where a resident of India derives income or owns

Suvodeep Pyne, Garia vs. ITO, Ward 63(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

grounds no. 2,3,4 of the appeal are allowed.” 9. The relevant extracts of Article 23(4) of the Treaty on Relief From Double Taxation is reproduced below for ready reference: “ In India , double taxation shall be eliminated as follows: Where a resident of India derives income or owns