“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

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

ACIT, Cenral Circle-4, Thane vs. M/S Eagle Infra India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assess

ITA 2214/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M SubramnianFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Deshmukh, CIT-DR

Section 13Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

search t the undisclosed cash income detected during the search t the undisclosed cash income detected during the search operation, shall amount to double taxation which is not permissible under operation, shall amount to double taxation which is not permissible under operation, shall amount to double taxation which

ACIT, Central Circle-4, Mumbai vs. Mm/S Eagle Infra India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assess

ITA 2213/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

For Appellant: Mr. M SubramnianFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Deshmukh, CIT-DR

Section 13Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

ACIT, Central Circle-4, Mumbai vs. M/S Eagle Infra India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assess

ITA 2212/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Mr. M SubramnianFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Deshmukh, CIT-DR

Section 13Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. Jashmin Kantilal Patel, Vapi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 125/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.125/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Jashmin Kantilal Patel, Vapi Circle, Plot No.320/9, 40 Shed Area, Gidc, Vapi Vapi – 396191. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agcp0492M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 09/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 143(1)

hands of the assessee, is quite illogical and unjustifiable in as much as it has resulted into double taxation. The partnership firm, M/s Yogi Transport had already accounted for this turnover in its books of accounts and shown profit thereon and also paid due tax thereon and now, the said ... entire turnover was again added to the income of the assessee and hence, it is a clear case of double taxation. Moreover, the assessee has not claimed TDS of Rs. 1,60,305/-, in the revised return of income filed by him, and partnership firm of assessee has shown turnover

Aap & Co., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 28/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Aap & Co., D.C.I.T. (Cpc), L 16-17, Agrasen Point, Bangalore. Vs. Opp. Maharaja Arcade, Surat, Gujarat- 395007 Pan No. Aarfa 8951 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 43B

audited accounts includes this amount. The assessee also applied for the benefit of scheme for other years. So on the grounds of double taxation, the addition cannot be made to the extent of 40% of Rs. 6,17,424/-. So 6 AAP & Co. Vs. DCIT far as 60% of amount

Fox International Channels (Us) Inc. (Now Known As "Tfcf" International Channels (Us) Inc'), Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int Taxation) - 4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 948/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blefox International Channels (Us) Inc V. Dcit (Intl. Taxation)-4(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building {Now Known As Tfcf International Nariman Point Channels (Us). Inc} Mumbai - 400021 C/O. Star House Urmi Estate, 95 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel (W), Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaacf8387J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 9(1)(vi)

holding that the distribution revenues earned by the Appellant fall within the meaning of the term 'Royalty' under Article 12 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("India-USA DTAA) and accordingly, such distribution revenues are taxable in India. Ground number 7 On the facts and in the circumstances ... broadcasting of its channels over various countries, including over the Indian sub-continent. FIC is eligible for the benefits of the India - USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and has filed a copy of TRC to that effect which is placed on record. FIC primarily had two streams of revenues from

Gemological Institute of America Inc., Mumbai vs. ACIT(It) Cir. 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 647/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegemological Institute Of America, Inc. V. Acit (International Taxation) C/O Gia India Laboratory Pvt. Ltd Circle-2(3)(2) 10Th Floor, Trade Centre 17Th Floor, Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400098 Pan: Aadcg7962K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. J.D. Mistry, Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri Ketan Ved Department Represented By Shri Hement Kumar C. Leuva :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

submits that the amount taxable in terms of section 115A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(2) of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [DTAA] should be restricted to the amount which is determined in accordance with the Advanced Pricing Agreement (APA), if any, entered into ... third parties. The assessee pleaded that it does not have any PE in India in terms of Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered into and subsisting between India and USA. The Indian Company i.e. GIA India Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., which was set up on 26/09/2007

M/S Cummins Technologies India Private Limited, Dewas vs. The ACIT Circle 1(1), Ujjain

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 53/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicummins Technologies Acit Circle -1(1) India Pvt. Ltd. Ujjain Industrial Area No.2 A.B. Vs. Road Industrial Area Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan K. Ved. Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

value of the closing stock then without giving the consequential effect of higher value of opening stock for the subsequent year would amount to double taxation. Ld. AR has submitted that neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has considered this aspect while passing the impugned order ... submitted that the addition made by the AO for the year under consideration without giving consequential effect in the subsequent year amounts to double taxation. He has further submitted that for A.Y.2010-11 the assesse has paid the tax at the same rate as paid for the year under consideration. Thus

Automation Anywhere Inc, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2148/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20. Automation Anywhere Inc., Vs. Dcit, 301-302, 10 Biz Park, Circle-1(1)(1), Near Airport, Pune, International Taxation, Maharashtra New Delhi Pan :Aamca9481A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

treated as business income and not offered to tax in India in absence of PE in terms of Article 7 of India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement 2 | P a g e ITA Nos.2147 & 2148 /Del/2022 AYs: 2018-19 & 2019-20 (DTAA). In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer

Automation Anywhere Inc, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2147/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs. Goel Jewellers Overseas Corp, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1597/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 68

stocks. The cash receipts represent the sales were already been offered to taxation, therefore, making addition u/s 68 of the Act will become double taxation on the assessee. Thus, Assessee's Representative by supporting the order of the CIT(A), sought for dismissal of the Appeal filed by the Revenue

Cricket Australia, Australia vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(2)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1179/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Cricket Australia, Vs Acit (International No.60, Jolimant Street, Jolimont Taxation), Victoria, Australia-3002. Circle-1(2)(1), Pan-Aaecc5341D Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Adv. & Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Vizay B.Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 06.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018- 19 Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 27.03.2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 195Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 9

joinder, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the facts are identical. He drew our attention towards various provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) and relevant contents of the case laws as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. To buttress the contention that change into domestic

Manasi Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemanasi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd V. Dcit, Central Circle 3(4) Office No. 37, 97/101 Room No. 1915 Mumbadevi Diamond Premises Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Sheikh Memon Street Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400002 Pan: Aabcm5354P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

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. We also rely upon: Hon'ble Indore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Dewas Soya

ITO-23(3)(6), Mumbai vs. Swarnsarita Jewellers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1420/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1420/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Ito-23(3)(6) बिधम/ Swarnsarita Jewellers Room No. 608, Earnest 1/E, Ruby Chamber, Vs. House, Nariman Point, 40/42, Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400021. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400003. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abyfs2206F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Shri Tushar Nagori Revenue By: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2023 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 (Appeals)/Nfac, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue In This Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.98 Lakhs Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter “The Ao”) U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Gold & Diamond Jewellery & Precious Stones. For Ay 2017-18 The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay. 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,73,840/-. The Ao Observed That, Search Action Was Conducted In The Case Of One, M/S. Raksha Bullion On 13.11.2016, In The Course Of Which Cash Of Rs.2.50

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. AR)

Section 132(4)Section 68

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

Mannu Bhatia, Uae vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 819/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Mannu Bhatia Vs. Acit, 1704, Mesk Tower, International Tax Al Marsa Road, Dubai Circle 1(1)(2) Marina, Dubai, Uae Pan : Afnpb4279A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 196A

also contested that Rs. 1,60,315/- has already been offered under the head income from other sources and the capital gain resulting in double taxation. 12. Appreciating the material on record it comes up that Ld. AO was primarily not set satisfied with the evidence before

The Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

ITA 1686/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 31, Tanglin Road, #03,-04, St. Circle-3(1)(1), Regis Residences, Singapore, International Taxation, Singapore, Singapore, 247912 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagct8026Q Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Anmol, Adv Shri Priya, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 282A(1)

Fresh Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. by the Appellant. 6. That the AO grossly erred in denying the Appellant the benefits of India - Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") and bringing to tax the short-term capital gains of INR 1,92,63,473/- earned by the Appellant during ... Assessee claimed short term capital gains of Rs. 1,92,63,473/- to be exempt as per Article 13 of India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and long term capital loss of Rs. 3,16,74,056/- was carry forward in subsequent years. The Assessee furnished the Tax Residency Certificate

Pentair Water India Private Limited, Verna vs. JCIT, Margao Range, Margao

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

ITA 76/PAN/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Jcit, Margao Range, L-52-55, Verna Industrial Margao, Goa. Estate, Phase-Ii, Verna, Salcette, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8856 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Agrawal, Fca Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Panaji, Dated 16.03.2020 For A.Y.2009-10 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Agrawal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

Section 154Section 234BSection 37Section 40

justice and come out with speaking order dealing with the submissions placed on record by the assessee and whether there is any issue of double taxation involved, in case in the relevant assessment year, the amount is disallowed. The ld. CIT(A) shall conduct all necessary verification of facts

Tech Data(Singapore) Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (It) Circle -4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 2367/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2367/मुं/ 2022 (िन.व.2019-20) Tech Data (Singapore) Pte Limited, 10, #05-17/20 Techpoint, Ang Mo Kio Street 65, Singapore -569059 Pan: Aagct-0951-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation, Circle -4(1)(2) Mumbai . ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Avneesh Tiwari सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 19/07/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act], For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Five Grounds. The Gist Of Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Is As Under: (I) Challenge To Validity Of Assessment – Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Issued Without Authority.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Avneesh Tiwari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 274

that, where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with any other Sovereign Nation for granting relief of tax or for avoidance of double taxation, then the provisions of the Act shall apply to the assessee only to the extent they are more beneficial to it. In case

Skf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1746/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Sailee V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 145A

residents of Sweden should be capped at the rate of tax on Dividend Income as per Article 10 of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation (DTAA) signed between India and Sweden read with the beneficial provisions of a DTAA or a Protocol between India 4 and third state which ... present appeal on account of resolution of dispute through Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) in terms of Article 26 of the Agreement For Avoidance of Double Taxation And Prevention Of Fiscal Evasion between India and Sweden. As per communication of resolution of dispute under MAP for Assessment Year

Sunil Singhal, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 671/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 69A

considering the nature of business of the appellant and merely proceeded on conjectures and surmises. Such action of the assessing officer had resulted double taxation. 5. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the approval accorded by the Addl. CIT/JCIT is merely mechanical, illegal, contrary to law and without