← 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

Saru Enterprises Private Limited, Patiala vs. ACIT/DCIT, Cen. Cir., Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

were based on the provisions of section 69A. 3. That the order of enhancement of income amounting Rs. 5,00,000/- has resulted in double taxation as the appellant has already included the same in the income tax return filed by it. 4. That the order of enhancement of income ... amounting Rs. 5,00,000/- has resulted in double taxation as the appellant has already included the same in the income tax return filed by it. 5. That CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the applicability of section 69 read with section 115BBE on income of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account

Saic Motor Overseas Intelligent Mobility Technology Co . Ltd., Shanghai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Hsiidc Building

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

ITA 2194/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

Motor India Private Limited ('MG India') is taxable as royalty in India in terms of Article 12(3) of the India-China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 4.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assessing officer erred in arbitrarily holding that supply of software ... engaged in the business of supply/licensing of automobile related software. It has opted to be governed by the provisions of India-China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-China DTAA”). Admittedly, it does not have a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India. For AY 2020-21, the assessee e-filed its return

Itd Cementation India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1401/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dcit Itd Cementation India Ltd. Central Circle 5(1) 9Th Floor, Prima Bay, Room No.1928, 19 Th Floor, Tower-B, Gate No.5, Air India Building, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 072 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1426A Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ramkrishna Bandi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ramkrishna Bandi, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80I

rejected the claim holding that dividend distribution tax is payable by the company and not by the shareholders and further the provision of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement does not apply. iv. The assessee also raised ground regarding disallowance under Section ... Section 115O of the Act, claim assessee that it should have been levied at the rate of 15% in terms of Article 10 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Thailand. As The learned Authorized Representative fairly admitted that this issue is decided against the assessee by the Special

Sh. Gurinder Makkar, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 20/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 43(1)Section 68Section 69

against the returned income of Rs. 56,63,130/-. 3. That Ld. CIT(Appeals)5, Ludhiana has passed order by applying double taxation on amount of Rs. 29,23,000/-, without considering the fact that the same amount has been already surrendered by the assessee on account of “excess stock ... Hence, when the tax has already been paid by the assessee on certain income, then making additions again on such income would lead to double taxation which is against the principles of natural justice and spirit of law. 6.4 It was further submitted that the additions made

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2437/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

benefit for taxation was bad in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the issue of :-18-: ITA. Nos: 2431 to 2437/Chny/2017 double taxation in the event of sustenance of the addition of Rs.6,77,926/- being the fringe benefit quantified from the expenses charged under the head ... finalized at Rs. 3.43 per card, income from sale of cards was offered for tax. Therefore, additions for the impugned assessment year tantamount to double taxation, which is not permissible under law. The Assessing Officer, however was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2436/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

benefit for taxation was bad in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the issue of :-18-: ITA. Nos: 2431 to 2437/Chny/2017 double taxation in the event of sustenance of the addition of Rs.6,77,926/- being the fringe benefit quantified from the expenses charged under the head ... finalized at Rs. 3.43 per card, income from sale of cards was offered for tax. Therefore, additions for the impugned assessment year tantamount to double taxation, which is not permissible under law. The Assessing Officer, however was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2435/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

benefit for taxation was bad in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the issue of :-18-: ITA. Nos: 2431 to 2437/Chny/2017 double taxation in the event of sustenance of the addition of Rs.6,77,926/- being the fringe benefit quantified from the expenses charged under the head ... finalized at Rs. 3.43 per card, income from sale of cards was offered for tax. Therefore, additions for the impugned assessment year tantamount to double taxation, which is not permissible under law. The Assessing Officer, however was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2434/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

benefit for taxation was bad in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the issue of :-18-: ITA. Nos: 2431 to 2437/Chny/2017 double taxation in the event of sustenance of the addition of Rs.6,77,926/- being the fringe benefit quantified from the expenses charged under the head ... finalized at Rs. 3.43 per card, income from sale of cards was offered for tax. Therefore, additions for the impugned assessment year tantamount to double taxation, which is not permissible under law. The Assessing Officer, however was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2433/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

benefit for taxation was bad in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the issue of :-18-: ITA. Nos: 2431 to 2437/Chny/2017 double taxation in the event of sustenance of the addition of Rs.6,77,926/- being the fringe benefit quantified from the expenses charged under the head ... finalized at Rs. 3.43 per card, income from sale of cards was offered for tax. Therefore, additions for the impugned assessment year tantamount to double taxation, which is not permissible under law. The Assessing Officer, however was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2432/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

benefit for taxation was bad in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the issue of :-18-: ITA. Nos: 2431 to 2437/Chny/2017 double taxation in the event of sustenance of the addition of Rs.6,77,926/- being the fringe benefit quantified from the expenses charged under the head ... finalized at Rs. 3.43 per card, income from sale of cards was offered for tax. Therefore, additions for the impugned assessment year tantamount to double taxation, which is not permissible under law. The Assessing Officer, however was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according

M/S Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd, Nandanam vs. DCIT Corporate Circle - 2 [1], Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2431/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

benefit for taxation was bad in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the issue of :-18-: ITA. Nos: 2431 to 2437/Chny/2017 double taxation in the event of sustenance of the addition of Rs.6,77,926/- being the fringe benefit quantified from the expenses charged under the head ... finalized at Rs. 3.43 per card, income from sale of cards was offered for tax. Therefore, additions for the impugned assessment year tantamount to double taxation, which is not permissible under law. The Assessing Officer, however was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according

Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

ITA 1417/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 30/03/2023, deleted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and upheld the disallowance of Rs.144.49 crores made by the A.O. and added back to the income of the assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 30/03/2023, the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 234A

been again offered to tax by the Assessee in subsequent years, the same should be deleted in the Assessment Year, in order to avoid double taxation. In our considered opinion, this direction is given to the Ld. A.O. to avoid double taxation and to meet the ends of justice

Sungard Availability Services Lp, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer (It), Ward 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.987/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sungard Availability Services Lp, The Income Tax C/O.Suite 320, 565 Ease V Officer(It), Swedesford Road, Wayne, S Ward-4, Pune. Pennsylyania19087, Usa. B.O.Bhavan, Sector No.17, Pune Satara Road, Parvati, Pune – 411009. Pan: Abtfs0527J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Ganesh Bare – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 11.07.2023 Passed By Income Tax Officer(It), Ward-4, Pune Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, Passed In Pursuance To Directions Issued By Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.06.2023.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Sungard Availability Services Lp, Usa [A]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

above services give rise to application of Sec.9’s applicability (supra), the assessee is found very well entitled for the benefit of India USA double taxation avoidance agreement “DTAA” u/s 90(2) of the act wherein Article 12 (4) (b) stipulates taxability of the income arising therefrom only

Shri Arindam Dasgupta., Kolkata vs. ACIT, It-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1127/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 5(2)(b)Section 6

allowing exemption claimed 2 I.T.A. No. 1127/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Arindam Dasgupta under Article 16(1) of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and further enhancing the income by Rs. 24,28,806/-. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a non-resident employee with IBM India ... amounting to Rs. 26,10,209/- and further relief of Rs. 24,28,806/- under Article 16 of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 40,090/- by claiming refund of Rs. 15,73,960/-. According to AO, since

Rajat Dhara, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1914/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1914/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajat Dhara............................................................…………………….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Abqpd1200L] Vs. Dcit (I.T), Circle-2(1), Kolkata...…….…..….........…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2019 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 Appeal Of The Assessee Was Earlier Decided By The Order Of The Tribunal Dated March 02, 2022, However, The Revenue Moved An M.A No.35/Kol/2022 Stating Therein That A Mistake Apparent On Record Has Occurred In The Order Of The Tribunal Dated 02.03.2022. Therefore, Vide Order Dated 15.12.2023 Passed In M.A No.35/Kol/2022, The Final Order Dated 02.03.2022 Passed In Ita No.1914/Kol/2019 Was Recalled. The Appeal Has Been Heard Afresh. 3. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 5Section 5(1)Section 90

assessee had received salary income of Rs.42,58,111/- from Stanadyne LLC, USA and claimed it exemption under Article 16(1) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and USA. The Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee had conceded that he was physically present in India ... terms of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. I therefore agree with the Ld. AO that the Double taxation Avoidance Agreement between India & USA was not applicable in the given facts of the present case. I thus do not find any infirmity whatsoever

Vipul Parimal Thakore, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 3595/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri.Anuj Krisnadwala.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 90

claimed as Foreign Tax Credit(FTC), as the assessee is eligible to claim tax relief u/sec 90 of the Act as per Double Taxation Avoidance and Agreement (DTAA) with the government of USA and the return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the income ... income tax rules prescribes the procedure for claiming the foreign tax credit. 8. We find Section 90 of the income tax Act allows double taxation relief in respect of agreements with foreign countries or specified territories and also Section 91 o the I T Act deals with the taxability

ACIT, Cirlce- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Henkel Anand India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross

ITA 3327/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 80I

ASSESSEE 9. Apropos restriction of tax paid under section 115-O of the Act @ 10% in terms of Article 10 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Germany : On this issue, we note that this issue has been raised for the first time before the ITAT

DCIT, Cirlce- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Henkel Anand India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross

ITA 1025/DEL/2018[23013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 80I

ASSESSEE 9. Apropos restriction of tax paid under section 115-O of the Act @ 10% in terms of Article 10 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Germany : On this issue, we note that this issue has been raised for the first time before the ITAT

Mr John Arunkumar Diaz, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3647/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyaljohn Arunkumar Diaz Vs. Dcit-19(1), 8A, Saahil, Room No. 203, 2 Nd Floor, 14 Altamount Road, Matrumandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aecpd6518C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Mahesh Rajora.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 44ASection 90

Kingdom was claimed as Foreign Tax Credit (FTC), as the assessee is eligible to claim tax relief u/sec 90 of the Act as per Double Taxation Avoidance and agreement (DTAA) with the government of United Kingdom and the return of income was processed u/sec ... income tax rules prescribes the procedure for claiming the foreign tax credit. We find Section 90 of the income tax Act allows double taxation relief in respect of agreements with foreign countries or specified territories and also Section 91 of the IT Act deals with the taxability of income where

Power and Energy Consultants India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3420/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshpower & Energy Consultants Vs. Ito, India Pvt. Ltd, Ward-19(1), House No. U-136, Vikas Marg, Delhi Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg3625J Assessee By : Shri Harish Chaudhary, Ca Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca Ms. Neetu Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Harish Chaudhary, CaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 90ASection 91

respect of a country or specified territory outside India with which India has entered into an agreement for the relief or avoidance of double taxation of income in terms of section 90 or section 90A, the tax covered under the said agreement; (b) in respect of any other country ... credit for foreign taxes. Article 24(4)(a) is relevant in the present context. Same is extracted below: "4. In the case of India, double taxation shall be avoided as follows: Power and Energy Consultants India Pvt. Ltd (a) the amount of Australian tax paid under the laws of Australia