← 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

M/S. Malaysian Airline System Berhad, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1012/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1012/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Malaysian Airline System Berhad Dcit 10Th Floor, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, Vs. (International 28, Barakhamba Road, Taxation), Circle 2(2)(1), 4Th Floor, New Delhi. Block E-2, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacm5033C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

JetLite in the nature of fee for Technical Services and is taxable on gross basis @ 10% as prescribed in Article 13(2) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Malaysia. Ground B: The Assessing Officer is not correct in stating that for the technical services provided

ACIT, New Delhi vs. American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1225/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2014-15 American Express (India) Pvt. Vs. Jcit, Ltd., Special Range-1, 7Th Floor, Mgf Metropolitan New Delhi Saket, Office Block District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan :Aaaca8163F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs. American Express (India) Special Range-1, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Block District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan :Aaaca8163F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

Nos.1032 & 1225/Del/2019 AY: 2014-15 for Technical Service (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) as well as under Article 12(4) of India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). He further observed that in assessment year 2011-12, the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has directed for disallowance of such expenses

American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special, Range-1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1032/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2014-15 American Express (India) Pvt. Vs. Jcit, Ltd., Special Range-1, 7Th Floor, Mgf Metropolitan New Delhi Saket, Office Block District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan :Aaaca8163F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs. American Express (India) Special Range-1, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Block District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan :Aaaca8163F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

Nos.1032 & 1225/Del/2019 AY: 2014-15 for Technical Service (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) as well as under Article 12(4) of India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). He further observed that in assessment year 2011-12, the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has directed for disallowance of such expenses

DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4607/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

assessed, the disallowance of the provision under sec.40(a)(ia) in the relevant year would effectively amount to double taxation. The ld AR further submitted that the provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) are not applicable to commission which forms part of salary in the light of the judgment ... provision of Rs.75 lakhs has been reversed on 01.04.2008, credited to the P & L A/c disallowance in the year under consideration would amount to double taxation. We notice that the assessing officer has not 35 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 considered

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4562/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

assessed, the disallowance of the provision under sec.40(a)(ia) in the relevant year would effectively amount to double taxation. The ld AR further submitted that the provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) are not applicable to commission which forms part of salary in the light of the judgment ... provision of Rs.75 lakhs has been reversed on 01.04.2008, credited to the P & L A/c disallowance in the year under consideration would amount to double taxation. We notice that the assessing officer has not 35 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 considered

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

assessed, the disallowance of the provision under sec.40(a)(ia) in the relevant year would effectively amount to double taxation. The ld AR further submitted that the provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) are not applicable to commission which forms part of salary in the light of the judgment ... provision of Rs.75 lakhs has been reversed on 01.04.2008, credited to the P & L A/c disallowance in the year under consideration would amount to double taxation. We notice that the assessing officer has not 35 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 considered

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3385/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

assessed, the disallowance of the provision under sec.40(a)(ia) in the relevant year would effectively amount to double taxation. The ld AR further submitted that the provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) are not applicable to commission which forms part of salary in the light of the judgment ... provision of Rs.75 lakhs has been reversed on 01.04.2008, credited to the P & L A/c disallowance in the year under consideration would amount to double taxation. We notice that the assessing officer has not 35 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 considered

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

assessed, the disallowance of the provision under sec.40(a)(ia) in the relevant year would effectively amount to double taxation. The ld AR further submitted that the provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) are not applicable to commission which forms part of salary in the light of the judgment ... provision of Rs.75 lakhs has been reversed on 01.04.2008, credited to the P & L A/c disallowance in the year under consideration would amount to double taxation. We notice that the assessing officer has not 35 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 considered

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Intl Tax Circle 3(2) (1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1758/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

alleged ground that the same is in the nature of Fees for Included Service (FIS), under Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA ('the Treaty') On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in proposing ... ordination Membership Agreement (INR 5,01,09,903/-) did not qualify as Fee for Included Services in terms of Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA (hereinafter referred to as ‘DTAA’) and therefore, were not liable to tax in India. However, the Assessing Officer

J.S.Fourwheel Motors (P) Ltd, Alwar vs. ACIT. Circle 1 Alwar, Alwar

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

ITA 423/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 144Section 24

Appeals), has erred in not giving any finding thereon and also erred in not disposing off the this ground on merit. 3 Double Taxation of the same income. That the ld. AO has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in considering ... assesse company under the head income from business, and the relevant material is already on assessment record, thus the said income have suffered double taxation, which is against the decision of hon.ble Supreme Court and also erred in making an addition of Rs. 8141192.00/- to the Income from House Property

Circular Aircon Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 12(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2776/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2776/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Circular Aircon Services बिधम/ Ito, Ward-12(1)(4) 1St Floor, Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 1, Mehta Industrial Estate, Office, New Marine Line, Jai Prakash Road No.2, Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc6387P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Neha Paranjpe Revenue By: Shri Satya Prakash Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 09.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Exparte & Confirming The Disallowance Made By Cpc U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Singh (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

been disallowed by the CPC u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act) And therefore, the disallowance of the same amount would tantamount to double taxation. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the contention, because according to him, assessee failed to produce relevant documents. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action ... then, the authorities concerned has to examine this issue and take the right action or else it will tantamount to double taxation. In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed, and in the interest of justice for both the parties, we set aside the impugned order

DCIT, Cir 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai

ITA 1974/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Kpmg Assurance & Consulting The Deputy Commissioner Of Services Llp Income Tax 8Th Floor Tower B Circle 16 (2) Dlf Building No 10 Room No 625, Ayakar Bhavan Vs. M K Road Gurgaon, Haryana Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafk1415H

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sant, SR DRFor Respondent: Shri

various payments to the foreign consultant because of the reason that the services do not „make available‟ those services to the assessee. Wherever the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement did not contain the article of Fees For Technical Services, we are of the opinion that it cannot go to the article ... other income‟ only because of the reason that FTS article is not there in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. To bring it under article “ other Income “ , it has to be established first that income stream does not fall in any other article of DTAA. Undisputedly, all the recipient

M/S Sancheti Ornaments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-NFAC CIT Appeals Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 1500/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1500/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Sancheti Ornaments बिधम/ Ito-Nfac/Cit (A) Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. Vs. Room No.7, 2Nd Floor, 65/67 Zaveri Bazaar, Mumbai-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps0110E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms Ruby Shrivastava Revenue By: Shri Suresh Gaikwad (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,54,47,500/- Being Cash Deposited During The Demonetization Period.

For Appellant: Ms Ruby ShrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gaikwad (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 68

Audit Profit & Loss account as income and if the cash deposits are added u/s 68 of the Act it will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the fundamental principles of taxation. In the light of the facts

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai vs. Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3274/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

manner in which the business should be conducted. 8.6.6.5 Apart from the above, it is also claimed that the impugned addition into imposition of double taxation on the same turnover/income in the same year. On one hand, the appellant has already offered such receipts in its ITR treating ... customers was already admitted as income and if the cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. It ITA No. 3062 & 3274/Mum/2022 Mangal Royal Jewels

Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3062/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

manner in which the business should be conducted. 8.6.6.5 Apart from the above, it is also claimed that the impugned addition into imposition of double taxation on the same turnover/income in the same year. On one hand, the appellant has already offered such receipts in its ITR treating ... customers was already admitted as income and if the cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. It ITA No. 3062 & 3274/Mum/2022 Mangal Royal Jewels

Ge Global Parts & Products Gmbh, Switzerland vs. ACIT Circle 1(3)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 736/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 5

arising in the present appeal is whether the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 of India – Switzerland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and in case there is a PE, attribution of profit to the said PE. 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jayem Holding Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur

In the result, appeal filed by the department in ITA no

ITA 93/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

unexplained income in the hands of assessee and to be taxed, if it is directed to do so, the same will be equal to double taxation. Under such facts and circumstances, since it is explicitly proved that the amount so received by the assessee company from M/s TEVPL was already

M/S. Sumit Global Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer - 1, Raigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 70/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.70/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sumit Global Pvt. Ltd. C/O Kanha Electricals & Electronics, Nanhu Nagar, Vijay Nagar, P.O. Kirodimalnagar, Raigargh (C.G.) Pan : Aaocs8271J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Rashi Steel and Power Ltd., therefore, the addition of the same amount in the hands of the assessee company would result in double taxation, which was not permissible under the law. The Ld. AR, in support of his 15 M/s Sumit Global Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO-1, Raigarh aforesaid contention

Shri Ramnikgiri Maharajgiri Gauswami, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Central Circle, Rajkot

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

ITA 94/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rjt/2019 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.93 & 94/Rjt/2019 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri Ramnikgiri Maharajgiri D.C.I.T, Gauswami, Vs. Circle-1, 403, Prince Tower, Rajkot. 16, Panchnath Plot, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Acbpg1256B

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 139Section 148Section 44A

imlo to meet his household expenses. Therefore, making separate addition on account of household expense in the given fact and circumstances will lead to double taxation which is not desirable under the provision of the Act. Thus, we hereby set-aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and direct

Shri Ramnikgiri Maharajgiri Gauswami, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Central Circle, Rajkot

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

ITA 93/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rjt/2019 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.93 & 94/Rjt/2019 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri Ramnikgiri Maharajgiri D.C.I.T, Gauswami, Vs. Circle-1, 403, Prince Tower, Rajkot. 16, Panchnath Plot, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Acbpg1256B

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 139Section 148Section 44A

imlo to meet his household expenses. Therefore, making separate addition on account of household expense in the given fact and circumstances will lead to double taxation which is not desirable under the provision of the Act. Thus, we hereby set-aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and direct