← 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

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1138/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

Peri Mauritius, Mauritius. Statedly, the holding company i.e. Peri Mauritius is a Tax Resident of Mauritius and is eligible to claim benefits under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered into between India and Mauritius. 2.1 During the Financial Year 2004-05 relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee-company

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1137/DEL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

Peri Mauritius, Mauritius. Statedly, the holding company i.e. Peri Mauritius is a Tax Resident of Mauritius and is eligible to claim benefits under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered into between India and Mauritius. 2.1 During the Financial Year 2004-05 relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee-company

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1136/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

Peri Mauritius, Mauritius. Statedly, the holding company i.e. Peri Mauritius is a Tax Resident of Mauritius and is eligible to claim benefits under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered into between India and Mauritius. 2.1 During the Financial Year 2004-05 relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee-company

ACIT, Circle-13(1), Hyderabad vs. M/S Suresh Productions Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

Accordingly, the ground of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1633/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80I

raising the same issues once again. If you propose to do additions on these issues referred in your letter asking details it amount to double taxation of the same income• and double demand raising on the same issued for the same assessment year" 8.0 The assessee has submitted details

ACIT-1(1), Bhopal vs. Akash Talreja, Raipur

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

ITA 349/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit 1(1) Akash Talreja Bhopal Lg-31 Samvet Shikhar, Building, Vs. Opposite Bjp Office Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aedpt3849K Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 15BSection 234BSection 69A

income from said sales to tax. Thus, the addition made by the AO on account of cash deposit in the bank account amounts to double taxation. The addition made by the AO is erroneous and purely on the basis of conjecture and surmises as the AO has simply doubted

Chinmay Impex Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 564/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 564/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) िनधा"रण वष" Chinmay Impex Private Income Tax Officer बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Ward – 1(1)(3), Limited Vs. C/O. M. S. Chhajed & Co. Ahmedabad Ca, “Kamal Shanti”, Nr. Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcc6478J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. S. Chhajed, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2024 15/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Return Of Income For A.Y. 2013-14 Was Filed On 30.09.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,79,950/-. Subsequently, The Ao Received An Information From Dgit (Inv.), Mumbai That Assessee Had Entered Into Reversal

For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151Section 68

accounts of the assessee and tax was paid thereon. According to the Ld. AR, the addition as made by the AO has resulted in double taxation. 8. Per contra, Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. DR submitted that the reopening done by the AO was based on specific information ITA No. 564/Ahd/2024 ... already disclosed the profit derived from the currency derivatives transaction in the accounts, the addition made by the AO was wrong and led to double taxation. He, therefore, requested that matter may be set aside to the AO to verify the fact of double taxation. 10. We have considered

Shri Girishbhai Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 332/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

without considering the facts that the Interest paid to the persons are paying tax on their respective income which amounts to double taxation, which is against the principal of law and natural justice. Therefore addition sustained by CIT(A) for Rs. 21,13,971/- may please be deleted. 5. Without ... paying tax on their Individual Income, However the disallowances made and sustained by CIT(A) for Rs. 24,02,792/- amounts to double taxation and therefore it requires to be deleted. 3. On peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant Ld. CIT(A) has erred both

Shri Girishbhai Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 331/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

without considering the facts that the Interest paid to the persons are paying tax on their respective income which amounts to double taxation, which is against the principal of law and natural justice. Therefore addition sustained by CIT(A) for Rs. 21,13,971/- may please be deleted. 5. Without ... paying tax on their Individual Income, However the disallowances made and sustained by CIT(A) for Rs. 24,02,792/- amounts to double taxation and therefore it requires to be deleted. 3. On peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant Ld. CIT(A) has erred both

Shri Girishbhai Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 330/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

without considering the facts that the Interest paid to the persons are paying tax on their respective income which amounts to double taxation, which is against the principal of law and natural justice. Therefore addition sustained by CIT(A) for Rs. 21,13,971/- may please be deleted. 5. Without ... paying tax on their Individual Income, However the disallowances made and sustained by CIT(A) for Rs. 24,02,792/- amounts to double taxation and therefore it requires to be deleted. 3. On peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant Ld. CIT(A) has erred both

Bright Securities Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no order as to

ITA 465/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 144BSection 147Section 148

However, as seen from the assessment order the AO has not taxed the profits earned on fictitious transactions again as it would amount to double taxation. However, the fictitious loss claimed by the appellant has been disallowed and added to the total income. Merely because profit has not been added ... WARD 2(2), JAIPUR order the AO has not taxed the profits earned on fictitious transactions again as it would amount to double taxation. However, the fictitious loss claimed by the appellant has been disallowed and added to the total income. Merely because profit has not been added it cannot

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Elitecore Technologies Private Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1728/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1728/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy.Cit Elitecore Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Circle-2(1)(1) बनाम/ (Now Merged With Sterlite Ahmedabad Technolgies Limited) V/S. 904, Silicon Tower, B/H. Pariseema Building Off. C.G. Road Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaace 6815G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 04/09/2019, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Dcit Vs. Elitecore Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 92C

nature and thus not liable for tax deduction at source under Section 195, citing the DCIT vs. Elitecore Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2011-12 Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) with respective countries. Additionally, the assessee provided extensive documentation supporting the genuineness and necessity of the expenses, including certificates, invoices

The Dy.DIT, (Intl. Taxn.)- 1, Ahmedabad vs. Vodafone West Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2398/AHD/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2398/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit (International Vodafone West Ltd. बनाम/ Taxation)-1 Vodafone House Ahmedabad Corporate Road V/S. Prahladnagar Off S.G. Highway Ahmedabad-380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacf 1190 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-Gandhinagar (Ahmedabad) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 02/06/2014, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Dy.Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad (Ao) Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) The Dcit (Intl.Taxn.)-1 Vs. Vodafone West Ltd. Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR
Section 195(1)Section 201(1)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

residency certificate obtained by Mycom from UK tax authorities was submitted to the AO). • Mycom is eligible to claim the benefits conferred by the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into between India and United Kingdom (India-UK tax treaty). • As per section 90 of the income ... right to use, any copyright. Consequently, the payments made under these agreements do not constitute royalties. 8.1. Article-13 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) between India-UK defines royalties in a manner that does not encompass the payments made for the use of computer software under End User

Income Tax Officer, Ujjain vs. M.P. Police Sakh Shakari Sanstha Maryadit, Ujjain

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 174/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

otherwise is under question, or ii. Appeals of International taxation charges where the dispute relates to the applicability of the provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement or otherwise m. Any other case or class of cases where in the opinion of the Board it is necessary to contest

Income Tax Officer, Ujjain vs. M.P. Police Sakh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Ujjain

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 173/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

otherwise is under question, or ii. Appeals of International taxation charges where the dispute relates to the applicability of the provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement or otherwise m. Any other case or class of cases where in the opinion of the Board it is necessary to contest

Termoplast Pollypacks Italy India Pvt. Ltd., Tiruvallur vs. The DCIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 1104/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1104/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri M.Karunakaran, Advocate
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246(1)(a)Section 250

hence was eligible to file an appeal against the same before the first appellate authority. The action of the CPC in alleged double taxation and incorrect application of tax rates etc. squarely constituted an event to cause grievance to the assesse. In view of the clear statutory position of section

Sonny Fireworks Pvt. Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, CC-2, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1081/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Sonny Fireworks Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, 12A/1C, West Street, Corporate Circle-2, Thiruthangal-626 123. Madurai. [Pan: Aadcs 3010 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwaran, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh-
Section 143(1)Section 68

cannot be legally sustained, because, the same has already been accounted as sales in the books of accounts of the assessee, and tantamount to double taxation of the same income which is against the basic fundamental principles of taxation. 9. It is true that u/s.68 of the Act, when ... income filed in the relevant assessment year. Therefore, no addition u/s.68 of the Act is plausible since it would tantamount to double taxation of the same income as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., (Tax Appeal No.2471

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office vs. Appliances Forever, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2842/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 69A

sales once as a regular sale shown in P & L Account and again the same under section 69A of the Act, which tantamount to double taxation being contrary to the law and accounting principles. He questioned the AO’s finding treating cash sales shown in the P & L account

Snnehshilp Constructions, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Nagpur

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

ITA 413/NAG/2023[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2005-2006

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

For Appellant: Shri Milind BhusariFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 40

been added while calculating the 8% estimated income on the total receipts. Hence the amount of Rs.41,32,485/- is nothing other than the double taxation of the assessee. The CIT appeal is not justified in confirming the said computation of income. Any other ground of appeal at the time

Parin Engineers, Mumbai vs. Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1725/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271F

Engineers (partnership firm) and import ledger of M/s. Parin Engineers (Prop. Anju Tolia), have also not been discussed so as to avoid possibility of double taxation. ITA no. 1725/MUM/2024 Parin Engineers Assessing Officer has also not taken care of the aforesaid facts despite dissolution deed, having been submitted by assessee

DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd, Chennai

In the result, aforesaid grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2799/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2799/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. The Dcit, M/S. Consolidated Corporate Circle-1(2), Construction Chennai. Consortium Ltd., No.3, Ii Link Street, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacc 4214 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

received from the company. The AO even though made an effort to see the receipt side in the hands of Samruddhi Holdings to avoid double taxation, he has not made any comment whether the same was offered for taxation in the hands of Samruddhi Holdings. The same were examined ... tailor-made arrangement. The addition made by the AO cannot survive for the simple reason that it will attract the wrath of double taxation. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the addition. The ground is allowed. Against the above finding of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal