← 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

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 740/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

Sandeep Kherada, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 610/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam (CIT)(V.H)
Section 131Section 144

given a voluntary statement that cash belonged to him and had filed an application before ITSC for settlement and addition would result in double taxation in hands of assessee and person who claimed ownership of seized cash - However, said application was rejected and order under section 153A was passed making

DCIT 22(1), Mumbai vs. Creations by Shanagar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11

ITA 2476/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2476/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-22(1) बिधम/ Creations By Shanagar Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, 34, Auro Villa, St. Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Andrews Rd Santaxruz Mumbai-400012. (West), Mumbai-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfc7957L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Milin Bakhai Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit”], Delhi Dated 16.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition In Respect Of Commission Paid To Foreign Agent Amounting To Rs.1,61,90,101/-.

For Appellant: Shri Milin BakhaiFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 9(2)

India. The AO further noted that assessee paid commission to those parties, who were the residents of country where the India had entered into Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The assessee was show-caused as to why the provision of section 195 of the Act should not be made applicable

Diversey India Hygiene Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

Accordingly, the ground raised by the appellant is allowed

ITA 1243/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234CSection 250Section 80G

provisions of Section 1150 of the Act to the extent the same exceeded the beneficial rate of taxation of dividend specified in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA, being the country of tax residence of the dividend recipients. The 10. 11. ITA No.1243 & 1283//Mum/2023 Assessment Year ... provisions of Section 1150 of the Act) to the extent the same exceeded the beneficial rate of taxation of dividend specified if the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA, being the country of tax residence of the dividend recipient. However, the aforesaid claim of the Assessee was rejected

Xyata Life Science Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 27(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2819/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Naman Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

back to the income of the assessee which was already offered to tax and hence, such amount of Rs 42,87,000 leads to double taxation. Therefore, the entire addition of Rs 42,87,000/- may liable to be quashed.  That the same view was also upheld

Appdynamics International Limited, Noida vs. ACIT Intl Taxation Circle 1(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2413/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

receipts from supply of copyrighted software license customers is in the nature of 'Royalty' as per the provisions of the Act and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA"). 4. Impugned order and Ld. DRP directions are bad in law, unlawful and illegal as same wrongly assume estopple ... treat all amounts reflected in form 26AS as Royalty income contrary to provisions of Income Tax Act, relevant Double taxation avoidance agreement, CBDT circular and authentic decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. B. Grounds of appeal in relation to other matters 5. The learned AO has erred

M/S Laxminarayan Associatesbhopal, Bhopal vs. The ITO 3(2), Bhopal

In the result, Quantum appeal is partly allowed and penalty appeal is allowed

ITA 83/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 40Section 68

therefore, in view of section 28(v) the same cannot be disallowed in the hand of the partnership firm as it would amount to double taxation of the said income. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal dated

M/S Laxminarayan Associatesbhopal, Bhopal vs. The ITO 3(2), Bhopal

In the result, Quantum appeal is partly allowed and penalty appeal is allowed

ITA 215/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 40Section 68

therefore, in view of section 28(v) the same cannot be disallowed in the hand of the partnership firm as it would amount to double taxation of the said income. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal dated

Media Research Users Council, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

ITA 196/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: him.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 25Section 263

appellant in the Assessment year 2012-13 on which the appellant had paid income tax and thus it is a case of double taxation. (iii) The learned CIT(A) omitted to consider Ground No. VI (3) and VII raised before him. (iv) In view of the above ... Assessment Year 2012-13 and appropriate tax was paid on the same. Therefore, in case the disallowance is upheld, the same would amount to double taxation. We are in agreement with the Learned Authorised Representative, that the Appellant cannot be subject to tax twice once on account of disallowance

Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.4981/मुं/2017 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.3065/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2011-12) आअसं.820/मुं/2019(िन.व.2012-13) आअसं.863/मुं/2022 (िन.व.2013-14) The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3,/Dcit (It) 1(2)(1)Mumbai Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ....."ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4899/मुं/2017 (िन.व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax,(It)-1(2),Mumbai Room No.1811, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ....."ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. AR

accordingly, the same is not outside the purview of taxation by India as provided in Article 12(3)(a) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Italy?” The Hon’ble Court after examining the provisions of Article 12 relating to “Interest” held that, “What

The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 820/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं . 4981/मुं/2017 (नि.व.2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar andFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. AR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण मुंबई पीठ“आई”, मुंबई पीठ श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री अमरजीत सिंह, लेखाकार सदस्य के

The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) -1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3065/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.4981/मुं/2017 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.3065/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2011-12) आअसं.820/मुं/2019(िन.व.2012-13) आअसं.863/मुं/2022 (िन.व.2013-14) The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3,/Dcit (It) 1(2)(1)Mumbai Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ....."ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4899/मुं/2017 (िन.व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax,(It)-1(2),Mumbai Room No.1811, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ....."ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. AR

accordingly, the same is not outside the purview of taxation by India as provided in Article 12(3)(a) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Italy?” The Hon’ble Court after examining the provisions of Article 12 relating to “Interest” held that, “What

Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4981/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.4981/मुं/2017 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.3065/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2011-12) आअसं.820/मुं/2019(िन.व.2012-13) आअसं.863/मुं/2022 (िन.व.2013-14) The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3,/Dcit (It) 1(2)(1)Mumbai Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ....."ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4899/मुं/2017 (िन.व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax,(It)-1(2),Mumbai Room No.1811, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ....."ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. AR

accordingly, the same is not outside the purview of taxation by India as provided in Article 12(3)(a) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Italy?” The Hon’ble Court after examining the provisions of Article 12 relating to “Interest” held that, “What

DCIT (It) -1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4899/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.4981/मुं/2017 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.3065/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2011-12) आअसं.820/मुं/2019(िन.व.2012-13) आअसं.863/मुं/2022 (िन.व.2013-14) The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3,/Dcit (It) 1(2)(1)Mumbai Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ....."ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4899/मुं/2017 (िन.व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax,(It)-1(2),Mumbai Room No.1811, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ....."ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. AR

accordingly, the same is not outside the purview of taxation by India as provided in Article 12(3)(a) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Italy?” The Hon’ble Court after examining the provisions of Article 12 relating to “Interest” held that, “What

First Abu Dhabi Bank Pjsc, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3279/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhfirst Abu Dhabi Bank Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Pjsc, Unit No.1101 & Income-Tax (It), Circle 1201 Platina Building, C- 2(3)(1), Room No. 1614, 59, G Block, Bandra Kurla 16Th Floor, Air India Complex, Bandra East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaecn2845F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai-2, Dated 20.07.2023 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: 1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Ao Has, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred In Initiating & Completing Assessment Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Without Issuing A Valid Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Ie, The Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Dated 29 June 2021 For Initiating Assessment Was Issued By National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac) Instead Of Being Issued By The Learned Ao (I.E Jurisdictional Assessing Officer) 2. Ground No. 2:

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 80G

health and education cess) as against interest income earned by the HO taxable at 5% under the provisions of Article 11 of India-UAE Double Taxation and Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 6. Ground No. 6. Without prejudice to Ground No 5, the learned AO has erred in doubly computing ... head office. The assessee has offered the said income to tax @ 5% under the provision of Article 11 of India-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The assessing officer has taxed the same @ 40% as per explanation to Sec. 9(1)(v) of the Act. During the course of appellate

Silver Brook Financial Learning Centre Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 5(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6420/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 40A(2)(a)

Ground No. 3 The AO erred in not considering, while passing the order, the fact that as per Article 15 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and USA, the said payment is not taxable in India as the director does not have a fixed base in India ... Appellant filed reply contending that Mr. N was tax resident of USA and was entitled to claim benefit of Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA (for short `DTAA′). It was the urged by the Appellant that the services rendered

Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Internaitonal Taxation)-Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3415/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24

Dhabi Investment Authority, Mumbai 2. The effective ground raised by the assessee reads as under:- “Ground No. 3: Denial of benefit under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') between India-UAE ('treaty') with respect to income earned by the Appellant in India 3.1On the facts and in the circumstances

Sharangpani Dinkar Pant, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3353/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sharangpani Dinkar Ito It 3(3)(1), Pant, International Tax Ward- 402, Bhoomi Oscar, 3(3)(1), Plot No.16/17, Vs. Air India Building, Sector-9, Mumbai – 400 021 Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai - 400 701 Pan: Aippp0288E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Balaji V, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 02 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 02 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Amarjit Singh: Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Same Assessment Year I.E. 2018-19 Against The Two Different Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act On The Common Issue Of Allowability Of Tds Credit Of Rs.17,59,258/- Which Was Not Allowed By The Ao Vide Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act & Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Vide Ita

For Appellant: Shri Balaji V, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(b)Section 143(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

period of my assignment as per the domestic tax laws of SL. As per Article 15(1) of the India-SL Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'), income of a Resident of SL, for services in rendered in SL, is taxable only in SL. Therefore ... limit. The assessee has also submitted that income of a resident of Sri Lanka as per Article 15(1) of the India–Sri Lanka Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) 7 ITA No.3352/M/2023 & ors. Shri Sharangpani Dinkar Pant is taxable only in Sri Lanka. However, from the findings

Sharangpani Dinkar Pant, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3352/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sharangpani Dinkar Ito It 3(3)(1), Pant, International Tax Ward- 402, Bhoomi Oscar, 3(3)(1), Plot No.16/17, Vs. Air India Building, Sector-9, Mumbai – 400 021 Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai - 400 701 Pan: Aippp0288E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Balaji V, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 02 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 02 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Amarjit Singh: Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Same Assessment Year I.E. 2018-19 Against The Two Different Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act On The Common Issue Of Allowability Of Tds Credit Of Rs.17,59,258/- Which Was Not Allowed By The Ao Vide Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act & Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Vide Ita

For Appellant: Shri Balaji V, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(b)Section 143(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

period of my assignment as per the domestic tax laws of SL. As per Article 15(1) of the India-SL Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'), income of a Resident of SL, for services in rendered in SL, is taxable only in SL. Therefore ... limit. The assessee has also submitted that income of a resident of Sri Lanka as per Article 15(1) of the India–Sri Lanka Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) 7 ITA No.3352/M/2023 & ors. Shri Sharangpani Dinkar Pant is taxable only in Sri Lanka. However, from the findings

Pukhraj Nathmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2815/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare
Section 68Section 69A

wholly improper for the AO to again tax these sale proceeds as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, as it would amount double taxation of the same sum. The reliance placed by the Ld. AR in support thereof on the following decisions are found to be relevant ... Officer to be the income of the assessee, addition of the same amount once again under section 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we are in agreement with