← 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

Elizabeth Simaputhran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) International Taxation, Chennai

In the result, ITA No.906/Chny/2023 stand allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 906/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Dasआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.906/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.907/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mrs. Elizabeth Sima Puthran Ito Prop. M/S. Puthran & Associates Ward-(1) बनाम No.B3, 5/7, Kesavan Orchid, International Taxation, / Vs. North Mada Street, Sri Nagar Colony, Chennai. Saidapet , Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepe-0124-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)- Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

field of IPR, trademarks etc. The Ld. AR submitted that these services would fall under specific provisions of ‘Independent professional services’ as per Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with respective countries. The Ld. AR submitted that though elaborate arguments, in this regard, were made before first appellate authority, the same

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 840/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

Profit and Loss account instead of 3% as per the agreement. The assessee further submitted that under the Act as well as the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) entered with the aforesaid countries, the assessee is liable to pay tax only on the amount of Royalty received

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed holding that the learned CIT appeal is correct in allowing

ITA 269/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House 6A, Shanti Nagar, Santacruz (East) Mumbai 400 055 Pan – Aaaca3622K Appellant Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai V/S

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Baker Hughes Energy Technology Uk Limited, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3279/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediabaker Hughes Energy Vs. Acit Technology Uk Limited Circle – 1(1)(2), Stoneywood Park North, International Taxation, Dyce, Aberdeen-Ab21 7Ea, New Delhi United Kingdom – 1111 Pan No. Aahcg 6037 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sachit Jolly & Shri Rishabh Malhotra, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.03.2024

Section 133(6)Section 44B

ACIT 2 3. Firstly, whether the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) in India in terms of Article – 5 of India-United Kingdom (‘UK’) Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’). Secondly, whether assessee’s income is to be computed under section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Before

Superb Mind Holding Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

press release issued by Ministry of Finance dated 10th May 2016, captioned as “Protocol for amendment of the Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital gains between India and Mauritius” has clarified that capital gains ... reduction, exemption, deferral or refund) on taxation imposed on the state of source under Articles 6 through 22 of the Convention, the relief from double taxation provided by Article 23, and the protection afforded to residents and nationals of a contracting state under Article 24 or any other similar limitations

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2315/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

circumstances of the case and in law, action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the order of the Ld. AO has resulted in double taxation of the same amount which is against the principles of natural justice. 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts ... year when the same were provided for, any reversal out of the same should be excluded from the total income to avoid potential double taxation of the amount (a) once in the year of creation of provision in which case the same would be debited

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addlcit, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6506/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

circumstances of the case and in law, action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the order of the Ld. AO has resulted in double taxation of the same amount which is against the principles of natural justice. 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts ... year when the same were provided for, any reversal out of the same should be excluded from the total income to avoid potential double taxation of the amount (a) once in the year of creation of provision in which case the same would be debited

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6296/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

circumstances of the case and in law, action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the order of the Ld. AO has resulted in double taxation of the same amount which is against the principles of natural justice. 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts ... year when the same were provided for, any reversal out of the same should be excluded from the total income to avoid potential double taxation of the amount (a) once in the year of creation of provision in which case the same would be debited

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 5925/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

circumstances of the case and in law, action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the order of the Ld. AO has resulted in double taxation of the same amount which is against the principles of natural justice. 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts ... year when the same were provided for, any reversal out of the same should be excluded from the total income to avoid potential double taxation of the amount (a) once in the year of creation of provision in which case the same would be debited

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 5903/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

circumstances of the case and in law, action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the order of the Ld. AO has resulted in double taxation of the same amount which is against the principles of natural justice. 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts ... year when the same were provided for, any reversal out of the same should be excluded from the total income to avoid potential double taxation of the amount (a) once in the year of creation of provision in which case the same would be debited

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Somenath Duttagupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 627/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.627/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Somnath Duttagupta……..………….…................…...……………....Appellant A 168, Lake Gardens, Shivam Building Flat A2, Kolkata – 700045. [Pan: Afqpd5412G] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Balaji V, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 01, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.04.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Making/Confirming The Addition Of Salary Income Of Rs.47,26,133/- Received By The Assessee In India For The Services Rendered In Us. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Revised Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2019-20 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.191370/-.

Section 250Section 90(4)

since, the salary was taxed in USA, therefore, taxing the salary in India would I.T.A. No.627/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Somnath Duttagupta amount to double taxation of the same income. The Assessing Officer, however, requisitioned tax resident certificate of USA from the assessee. The assessee, however, failed to submit ... salary was taxed in the US and therefore, he was entitled to claim exemption under Article 16 of the Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) and accordingly was entitled to claim exemption from taxation of the salary I.T.A. No.627/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Somnath Duttagupta received in India

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5934/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5363/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us.

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14A

ASIAN PAINTS LTD. ITA NO.5363/MUM./2017 ITA NO.5934/MUM./2017 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55

M/S Worldpart Ltd vs. DCIT, Intnl Taxn Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 760/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.740 & 741/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Worldpart Limited, Income Tax, International Taxation 3, Julia House, Themistocles Dervis, Circle 2(2), Chennai. Nicosia 106600, Foreign Cyprus Represented By: M/S. K M Mohandass & Co., No. 36, 1St Street, Sait Colony, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aaacw9185B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.758, 759 & 760/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. World Part Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O B S R & Company, 9Th Floor, Income Tax, International Taxation Business Plaza, Westin Hotel Circle 2(2), Chennai. Campus, 36/3-B Koregaon Park Annex, Mundhwa Road, Ghorpadi, Pune, Maharashtra 411 001. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 23.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

/Chny/23 It is evident that the sole issue that fall for our consideration is to adjudicate whether the assessee is eligible for benefits of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [DTAA] or not. 3. The ld. AR, at the outset, placed on record written submissions and submitted that the impugned issue ... that the appellant is a beneficial owner of interest income received from FCCD and consequently, entitled for benefit of Article 11 of India-Cyprus Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute tax @ 10% on interest income as per India-Cyprus Tax Treaty, as claimed

M/S Worldpart Ltd vs. DCIT, Intnl Taxn Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 759/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.740 & 741/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Worldpart Limited, Income Tax, International Taxation 3, Julia House, Themistocles Dervis, Circle 2(2), Chennai. Nicosia 106600, Foreign Cyprus Represented By: M/S. K M Mohandass & Co., No. 36, 1St Street, Sait Colony, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aaacw9185B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.758, 759 & 760/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. World Part Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O B S R & Company, 9Th Floor, Income Tax, International Taxation Business Plaza, Westin Hotel Circle 2(2), Chennai. Campus, 36/3-B Koregaon Park Annex, Mundhwa Road, Ghorpadi, Pune, Maharashtra 411 001. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 23.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

/Chny/23 It is evident that the sole issue that fall for our consideration is to adjudicate whether the assessee is eligible for benefits of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [DTAA] or not. 3. The ld. AR, at the outset, placed on record written submissions and submitted that the impugned issue ... that the appellant is a beneficial owner of interest income received from FCCD and consequently, entitled for benefit of Article 11 of India-Cyprus Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute tax @ 10% on interest income as per India-Cyprus Tax Treaty, as claimed

M/S Worldpart Ltd vs. DCIT, Intnl Taxn Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 758/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.740 & 741/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Worldpart Limited, Income Tax, International Taxation 3, Julia House, Themistocles Dervis, Circle 2(2), Chennai. Nicosia 106600, Foreign Cyprus Represented By: M/S. K M Mohandass & Co., No. 36, 1St Street, Sait Colony, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aaacw9185B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.758, 759 & 760/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. World Part Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O B S R & Company, 9Th Floor, Income Tax, International Taxation Business Plaza, Westin Hotel Circle 2(2), Chennai. Campus, 36/3-B Koregaon Park Annex, Mundhwa Road, Ghorpadi, Pune, Maharashtra 411 001. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 23.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

/Chny/23 It is evident that the sole issue that fall for our consideration is to adjudicate whether the assessee is eligible for benefits of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [DTAA] or not. 3. The ld. AR, at the outset, placed on record written submissions and submitted that the impugned issue ... that the appellant is a beneficial owner of interest income received from FCCD and consequently, entitled for benefit of Article 11 of India-Cyprus Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute tax @ 10% on interest income as per India-Cyprus Tax Treaty, as claimed

DCIT, Intnl Taxn Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S Worldpart Ltd., Nicosia

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 741/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.740 & 741/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Worldpart Limited, Income Tax, International Taxation 3, Julia House, Themistocles Dervis, Circle 2(2), Chennai. Nicosia 106600, Foreign Cyprus Represented By: M/S. K M Mohandass & Co., No. 36, 1St Street, Sait Colony, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aaacw9185B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.758, 759 & 760/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. World Part Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O B S R & Company, 9Th Floor, Income Tax, International Taxation Business Plaza, Westin Hotel Circle 2(2), Chennai. Campus, 36/3-B Koregaon Park Annex, Mundhwa Road, Ghorpadi, Pune, Maharashtra 411 001. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 23.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

/Chny/23 It is evident that the sole issue that fall for our consideration is to adjudicate whether the assessee is eligible for benefits of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [DTAA] or not. 3. The ld. AR, at the outset, placed on record written submissions and submitted that the impugned issue ... that the appellant is a beneficial owner of interest income received from FCCD and consequently, entitled for benefit of Article 11 of India-Cyprus Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute tax @ 10% on interest income as per India-Cyprus Tax Treaty, as claimed