double taxation — 4,703 case laws

Shruti Ahuja, Haryana, India vs. ITO Ward 2, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as infructuous

ITA 2007/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

India, the assessee claims to be eligible for relief under Section 90 of the Act r.w. Article 4 and Article 23 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Netherlands. The assessee filed return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act wherein the income received from assignments

Fixed & Mobile Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 767/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Fixed & Mobile Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 1 Raffles Place, International Taxation, #28-01 One Raffles Place, Tower-2, Circle 1(3)(1), Singapore, Singapore 9999. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcf4910G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Vasant, Fca & Ms Poonam Ahuja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Alok Vasant, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Appellant, ought to be taxed as fees for the aforesaid alleged services at 10% as per Article 12 of the India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( referred further as ‘Relevant DTAA’). 2.3 The Appellant filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on April 12, 2023 against the draft assessment order

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 341/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

dividend paid to its shareholder namely Koninklijke Philips N.V., which is a tax resident of the Netherlands, should be 5% as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Netherlands ('the DTAA'). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... stated that since the shareholder namely, Koninklijke Philips N.V is a tax resident of Netherlands and the tax rate is 5% as per DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) between India and the Netherlands. DDT is payable @ 5% only on the dividend paid to the shareholder namely, Koninklijke Philips

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 340/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

dividend paid to its shareholder namely Koninklijke Philips N.V., which is a tax resident of the Netherlands, should be 5% as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Netherlands ('the DTAA'). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... stated that since the shareholder namely, Koninklijke Philips N.V is a tax resident of Netherlands and the tax rate is 5% as per DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) between India and the Netherlands. DDT is payable @ 5% only on the dividend paid to the shareholder namely, Koninklijke Philips

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 339/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

dividend paid to its shareholder namely Koninklijke Philips N.V., which is a tax resident of the Netherlands, should be 5% as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Netherlands ('the DTAA'). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... stated that since the shareholder namely, Koninklijke Philips N.V is a tax resident of Netherlands and the tax rate is 5% as per DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) between India and the Netherlands. DDT is payable @ 5% only on the dividend paid to the shareholder namely, Koninklijke Philips

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 338/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

dividend paid to its shareholder namely Koninklijke Philips N.V., which is a tax resident of the Netherlands, should be 5% as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Netherlands ('the DTAA'). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... stated that since the shareholder namely, Koninklijke Philips N.V is a tax resident of Netherlands and the tax rate is 5% as per DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) between India and the Netherlands. DDT is payable @ 5% only on the dividend paid to the shareholder namely, Koninklijke Philips

Deutsche Equities India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG. 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 8354/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Anil SantFor Respondent: Shri P.J. Pardiwala

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 92D

Deutsche Securities Inc., New York were not in the nature of ‘fees for included services' as per clause 12(4)(b) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA. The appellants pray that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on account of global overhead charges ... Assessee that the aforesaid payments were not covered by the expression ‘Fee for Included Services’ as defined in Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA [for Short ‘DTAA’] since the services under consideration did not 'make available’ any technology, skill etc. It was further submitted

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Equities India P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 8033/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil SantFor Respondent: Shri P.J. Pardiwala

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 92D

Deutsche Securities Inc., New York were not in the nature of 'fees for included services' as per clause 12(4)(b) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA. The appellants pray that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on account of global overhead charges ... Assessee that the aforesaid payments were not covered by the expression ‘Fee for Included Services’ as defined in Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA [for Short ‘DTAA’] since the services under consideration did not 'make available' any technology, skill etc. It was further submitted

Springer Nature Customer Service Center Gmbh, Germany vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(2) Intl Tax New Delhi, Intl Tax New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3307/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270A

Group’s affiliated publisher entities as fee for technical services (“FTS”) both under the provisions of the Act and Article 12 of India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ DRP failed to appreciate that ... royalty, and to this end, invoked the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (in short, “DTAA”). 5. Since the respondent/assessee was dissatisfied with the additions made, it preferred an appeal with the Commissioner of Income

Springer Nature Customer Service Center Gmbh, Germany vs. ACIT-3(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2420/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270A

Group’s affiliated publisher entities as fee for technical services (“FTS”) both under the provisions of the Act and Article 12 of India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ DRP failed to appreciate that ... royalty, and to this end, invoked the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (in short, “DTAA”). 5. Since the respondent/assessee was dissatisfied with the additions made, it preferred an appeal with the Commissioner of Income

Yogesh Patel, Usa vs. DCIT Circle Int Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with consequences to follow as directed above

ITA 2065/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Yogesh Patel, Vs Dcit, 37319, Fowler Street New Ark Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), California, New Delhi. Usa 94560. Pan: Arppp4747H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao), For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Applicant Is Non-Resident Indian Settled In Usa & Is Us Tax Resident. During The Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Reference, The Applicant Sold Ancestral Land Bearing S No14 Hissa, No 7 Pt, Village Goregaon, Tal Borivli, Mumbai Suburban Dist On December 11, 2019 & Disclosed Long Term Capital Gains Computed As Under:- Amt In Rs Sale Consideration - 18,56,87,500 Less: Deduction U/S 48 - 13,56,87,500 Net Sale Consideration (I) 5,00,00,000 Acquisition Cost Fair Market Value On 01-04-2001 Rs 10,400/- X 3647.80 Sq M 3,79,37,120 Less: 60% Reduction In Fmv Due To Encroachment 2,27,62,272 1,51,74,848 Indexed Cost 1,51,74,848 X [289/100] 4,38,55,311 Cost Of Acquisition (Ii) 4,38,55,311 Long Term Capital Gains: (I) - (Ii) 61,44,689

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 48

remand proceedings c. The AO did not afford cross examination of the buyer or confirming party to the Appellant d. The same amounts to double taxation of the same Income, costing in the hands of Confirming Parties and the Occupant and again in the hands of the Appellant which

DCIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Vss Sales (Prop. Gaurav Jain), Ghaziabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Vss Sales (Prop. Gaurav Jain), Central Circle-27, 11/28, Raj Nagar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan: Aaypt1709K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

above, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue as the issue raised therein would only lead to anomalous result, double taxation and unjust enrichment of the revenue as the credits in the two bank accounts have already been subjected to tax on two occasions

Amcell E Services, Patiala vs. ITO, W-2, Patiala

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 806/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1057250796(1) Dt. 20/10/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Assessee Pan Is Aaxfa0904A. The A.Y. Is 2017-18 Corresponding To The F.Y. From 01/04/2016 To 31/03/2017. Factual Matrix 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal In Form No. 36 Before Us. 1. That The Cit(A) Appeal Decided The Appeal Ex-Party Without Providing Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard As Such The Order Is Liable To Deleted. 2. That The Addition Confirmed By Cit(A) Of Rs. 90,88,250/- Is Illegal & Against The Fact Of The Case. 3. That The Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Ao Has Accepted The Fact That The Bank Account In Question Is Already Incorporate In Personal Returns Of The Partner Shri Mukesh Kumar As Such The Same Has Resulted In Double Taxation.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 253

bank account in question is already incorporate in personal returns of the partner Shri Mukesh Kumar as such the same has resulted in double taxation. 3. The brief statement of facts are as under : "The appellant firm, M/s AM CELL E SERVICES was dissolved w.e.f. A.Y.2014-15 with continuing partner

Yash Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 443/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144Section 250Section 40Section 69A

again sales realization is added it becomes double addition. Hence, addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) -NFAC leads to double taxation, which is wrong and needs to be deleted. 3. That me La. CTT(A) - NFAC, was wrong in confirming the addition

Rane Engine Valve Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 885/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 143(3)

have appreciated that since the services are rendered by an individual Non-Resident the same is covered under Article 14 of India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) as Independent Personal Services' and as the same is not taxable in India by virtue of the specific exclusion contemplated under Article ... between India and Germany. In this case it was held that the expression "professional services" in article 14 of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between Germany and India is wide enough to include services, if any, rendered by the applicant as an engineer and marketing consultancy services rendered

ITO Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Saaksha Developers Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2978/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2976/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2977/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2978/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito M/S Saaksha Developers Private Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-6(1), No.1, Subbraya Avenue, C.P.Ramaswamy Road, Alwarpet, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aamcs-2275-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 37(1)

evident that the assessee recognized revenue and offered income tin subsequent years based on completed contract method. Taxing the same prematurely would amount to double taxation. The Ld. AO failed to demonstrate as to how the income had accrued to the assessee in this year. The assessee had the obligation ... same has also been tabulated by Ld. AR before us. In such a scenario, taxing the advances prematurely would amount to double taxation which could not be held to be justified. The project has attained a reasonable level of development only during subsequent years. In this year, there

ITO Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Saaksha Developers Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2977/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2976/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2977/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2978/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito M/S Saaksha Developers Private Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-6(1), No.1, Subbraya Avenue, C.P.Ramaswamy Road, Alwarpet, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aamcs-2275-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 37(1)

evident that the assessee recognized revenue and offered income tin subsequent years based on completed contract method. Taxing the same prematurely would amount to double taxation. The Ld. AO failed to demonstrate as to how the income had accrued to the assessee in this year. The assessee had the obligation ... same has also been tabulated by Ld. AR before us. In such a scenario, taxing the advances prematurely would amount to double taxation which could not be held to be justified. The project has attained a reasonable level of development only during subsequent years. In this year, there

ITO Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Saaksha Developers Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2976/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2976/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2977/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2978/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito M/S Saaksha Developers Private Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-6(1), No.1, Subbraya Avenue, C.P.Ramaswamy Road, Alwarpet, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aamcs-2275-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 37(1)

evident that the assessee recognized revenue and offered income tin subsequent years based on completed contract method. Taxing the same prematurely would amount to double taxation. The Ld. AO failed to demonstrate as to how the income had accrued to the assessee in this year. The assessee had the obligation ... same has also been tabulated by Ld. AR before us. In such a scenario, taxing the advances prematurely would amount to double taxation which could not be held to be justified. The project has attained a reasonable level of development only during subsequent years. In this year, there

Rane Engine Valve Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 2815/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 143(3)

have appreciated that since the services are rendered by an individual Non-Resident the same is covered under Article 14 of India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) as Independent Personal Services' and as the same is not taxable in India by virtue of the specific exclusion contemplated under Article ... between India and Germany. In this case it was held that the expression "professional services" in article 14 of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between Germany and India is wide enough to include services, if any, rendered by the applicant as an engineer and marketing consultancy services rendered

Rane Engine Valve Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1477/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 143(3)

have appreciated that since the services are rendered by an individual Non-Resident the same is covered under Article 14 of India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) as Independent Personal Services' and as the same is not taxable in India by virtue of the specific exclusion contemplated under Article ... between India and Germany. In this case it was held that the expression "professional services" in article 14 of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between Germany and India is wide enough to include services, if any, rendered by the applicant as an engineer and marketing consultancy services rendered

“double taxation”

Leading authorities on double taxation

Judgments citing double taxation

Shruti Ahuja, Haryana, India vs. ITO Ward 2, Rohtak

Fixed & Mobile Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

Deutsche Equities India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG. 4(1), Mumbai

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Equities India P.Ltd, Mumbai

Springer Nature Customer Service Center Gmbh, Germany vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(2) Intl Tax New Delhi, Intl Tax New Delhi

Springer Nature Customer Service Center Gmbh, Germany vs. ACIT-3(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

Yogesh Patel, Usa vs. DCIT Circle Int Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

DCIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Vss Sales (Prop. Gaurav Jain), Ghaziabad

Amcell E Services, Patiala vs. ITO, W-2, Patiala

Yash Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 8(2), Kolkata

Rane Engine Valve Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

ITO Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Saaksha Developers Private Limited, Chennai

ITO Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Saaksha Developers Private Limited, Chennai

ITO Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Saaksha Developers Private Limited, Chennai

Rane Engine Valve Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

Rane Engine Valve Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5 (1), Chennai