← 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, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.352/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Dcit Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Circle 4(2) Vs. A-24, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. West, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacb4823D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 68

where the A.O has accepted the sales realization as income, addition on the same account u/s 68 of the Act would be tantamount to double taxation of the same income. (iv) Similarly, the ratio of decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of S.B. Steel Industries ... deduction/allowance). In fact the treatment of the I.T.A. No. 352/Del/2021 cash deposits as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 by the A.O has resulted in double taxation of the same amount, once in the form of cash sales already offered to tax by the Assessee at the rate of tax applicable

Sapein Funds Ltd., Mauritius vs. CIT (International Taxation) Delhi-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

taxable and the Assessee is a Mauritius based Fund and a tax resident of Mauritius and as such is entitled benefits of India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 12. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT has erred in holding that ... appreciating that the Assessee is a Mauritius based Fund and a tax resident of Mauritius and as such is entitled benefits of India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and the transaction is genuine in nature. 14. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1), Bhilai vs. Shri Nitin Sankhla, Durg

In the result, grounds no 2 to 7 on this single issue of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 98/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Vs Shri Nitin Sankhla 1(1), Bhilai 1St Floor, Navkar Bullion, Above Navin Jeweller, Jawahar Chowk, Durg Pan No. :Bbups 4874 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ila M. Parmar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Respondent: Shri Ila M. Parmar, CIT- DR
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

regular cash sales and deposit of cash in bank account and if nothing incriminationg is found, then the addition u/s 68 would tantamount to double taxation and hence is not called for. In view of the above facts and interpretation of similar facts in the decision of Rajasthan ITAT

DCIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bsr and Co. LLP, Mumbai

In the result ITA No. 723/Mum/2023 is dismissed, ITA No

ITA 723/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Das, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ajit Kumar Jain CA &
Section 142(1)Section 40Section 90

have permanent establishment in India. The CIT (Appeals) has found that such entities are eligible for the benefit of Article -15 of Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement dealing with independent personal services and hence, payments are not chargeable to tax in India so as to require deduction ... been made available to the assessee so as to consider it as falling within the purview of Article-12 of Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. It is also an established fact that such non-resident recipients do not have permanent establishment in India and, therefore, in the said background

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

appreciating the fact that during the assessment year 2009. 10 the said sum was actually paid by the Bank to the Fund. 11. Double taxation relief (“DTR’) 11.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to grant the entire credit of DTR of Rs.286 ... claim of the appellant. 14.4 The learned CIT(A) erred in observing that no facts were on record, without appreciating that the claim of Double Taxation Relief was verified by the Assessing Officer and hence significant facts were available on record. 15. Each one of the above grounds of appeal

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

appreciating the fact that during the assessment year 2009. 10 the said sum was actually paid by the Bank to the Fund. 11. Double taxation relief (“DTR’) 11.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to grant the entire credit of DTR of Rs.286 ... claim of the appellant. 14.4 The learned CIT(A) erred in observing that no facts were on record, without appreciating that the claim of Double Taxation Relief was verified by the Assessing Officer and hence significant facts were available on record. 15. Each one of the above grounds of appeal

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 496/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

this issue. It is well settled proposition that same income cannot be taxed twice. It is the contention of the assessee that there is double taxation of same item. In our view, this contention of the assessee requires examination at the end of the Assessing Officer since the contention

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 495/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

this issue. It is well settled proposition that same income cannot be taxed twice. It is the contention of the assessee that there is double taxation of same item. In our view, this contention of the assessee requires examination at the end of the Assessing Officer since the contention

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 494/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

this issue. It is well settled proposition that same income cannot be taxed twice. It is the contention of the assessee that there is double taxation of same item. In our view, this contention of the assessee requires examination at the end of the Assessing Officer since the contention

DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Subhshree Investment Management P.Ltd, Kolkata

Appeals is allowed

ITA 3301/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. M/S. Subhshree Investment Central Circle-8, Management Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi Flat -1A, Block-2, Silver Spring Bldg., 5, Jbs, Haldane Avenue, Kolkata, West Bengal-700105. Pan : Aamcs4230P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

income is taxed in the hands of Surya Food and Agro Ltd. Therefore prima facie the case of the assessee shows that there is double taxation, once the source of income and secondly the application of income. We entirely agree with the above finding of the ITAT in the order

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 1 (3)92), Mumbai

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

ITA 7807/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

employee's hands, a disallowance in the hands of in the employee's hands, a disallowance in the hands of employer will mean double taxation. employer will mean double taxation. In this connection, we n this connection, we note that the said decision of the Id. Special Bench has been

Country Inn & Suits by Raddison, Inn, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2) (1)International Taxation, Newdelhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2224/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

franchise hotels towards centralized services as fees for technical services (FTS)/fees for included services (FIS) under Article 12(4)(a) of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 3. The facts involved relating to the issue in dispute are, more or less, common in all these appeals. The assessees ... Delhi High Court in case cited as Director of Income- tax vs. Sheraton International Inc. - (2009) 313 ITR 267 (Del.) as under: “Double taxation relief-Agreement between India and USA- Payment for advertising, publicity and sales promotion services-Tribunal found as a final fact finding authority that main services rendered

Radisson Hotels International Incorporated, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2223/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

franchise hotels towards centralized services as fees for technical services (FTS)/fees for included services (FIS) under Article 12(4)(a) of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 3. The facts involved relating to the issue in dispute are, more or less, common in all these appeals. The assessees ... Delhi High Court in case cited as Director of Income- tax vs. Sheraton International Inc. - (2009) 313 ITR 267 (Del.) as under: “Double taxation relief-Agreement between India and USA- Payment for advertising, publicity and sales promotion services-Tribunal found as a final fact finding authority that main services rendered

Radisson Hotel International Incorporated, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2222/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

franchise hotels towards centralized services as fees for technical services (FTS)/fees for included services (FIS) under Article 12(4)(a) of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 3. The facts involved relating to the issue in dispute are, more or less, common in all these appeals. The assessees ... Delhi High Court in case cited as Director of Income- tax vs. Sheraton International Inc. - (2009) 313 ITR 267 (Del.) as under: “Double taxation relief-Agreement between India and USA- Payment for advertising, publicity and sales promotion services-Tribunal found as a final fact finding authority that main services rendered

Netafim Ltd., Gujarat vs. DCIT Circle- 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 366/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16

from its Indian subsidiary towards IT and SAP charges can be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under India – Israel Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) read with India – Portugal DTAA. 3. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated

Netafim Ltd., Gujarat vs. DCIT Circle- 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 1092/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16

from its Indian subsidiary towards IT and SAP charges can be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under India – Israel Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) read with India – Portugal DTAA. 3. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated

Sis Live, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2146/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sis Live, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Statesman House Income Tax, Building, Barakhamba Road, Circle-3(1)(2), International Connaught Place, Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9

circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has grossly erred in interpreting the provisions of the Act and the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA') by holding that interest income amounting to INR 8,910,553 received on inter-company receivable is taxable at the rate ... Project Office (PO) in India in 2010, which constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE) in terms of Article 5 of India – UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), and started filing its return of income offering income to tax. Due to ongoing legal proceedings arising out of arbitral award, the assessee claimed

Sis Live, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2145/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sis Live, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Statesman House Income Tax, Building, Barakhamba Road, Circle-3(1)(2), International Connaught Place, Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9

circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has grossly erred in interpreting the provisions of the Act and the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA') by holding that interest income amounting to INR 8,910,553 received on inter-company receivable is taxable at the rate ... Project Office (PO) in India in 2010, which constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE) in terms of Article 5 of India – UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), and started filing its return of income offering income to tax. Due to ongoing legal proceedings arising out of arbitral award, the assessee claimed

Satyaprakash Maruti Prasad Sharma, Mumbai vs. ACIT-20(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 298/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.298/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Satyaprakash Maruti Prasad बिधम/ Acit-20(3) Sharma R. No. 615, 6Th Floor, Vs. 55/4, Rishikesh Bhawan, Piramal Chambers, Aai Mai Merwanji Street, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400012. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aljps5054L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/05/2023 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 10.01.2023 Passed For Ay 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.41,79,889/- On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business As Works Contractor (For Supply Of Display Counters By Making It At The Site Of Customer). The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 12.10.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.34,12,777/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). Later, An Information Was Received From The Office Of Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai That The Assessee Was Engaged In Showing Bogus Purchases & Is A Beneficiary Of Such Transaction. The Ao Has Taken Note Of Fifteen (15) Parties From Whom It Was Alleged

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

plus interest thereon, to the Sales Tax Department, copy of challan is on record. In view of the natural justice and to avoid double taxation to that extent, the purchase amount for the purpose of addition u/s 69C is taken at Rs.42,79,889/-. 15. Notwithstanding the above conclusion that

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1035/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Siddharth Kothari.AR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Mumbai. 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 was also submitted that the assessee was having ... 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 is also on record that the assessee