← 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

Gate Gourmet Switzerland Gmbh, Switzerland vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 673/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

declaring income of Rs.3,10,35,460/- and paid tax at the rate of 10% by applying the beneficial provisions of India – Switzerland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). In course of assessment proceeding, as alleged by the Assessing 2 | P a g e AY: 2014-15 Officer, the assessee

M/S S.D.Bansal Iron & Steel P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 69BSection 69C

account of various loose papers.” 30. We agree in principle that there should not be double taxation of same amount or same income. We also agree that if the assessee has already surrendered/offered certain income, the AO should allow set-off of additions made by him against such surrendered/offered income

M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT -2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2908/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd V. Acit-2(3) Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- 2(3) V. M/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd Room No. 555, Aayakar Bhavan Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 80HSection 92Section 92(1)Section 92CSection 94(7)

under the head "Business Income". Having held that Rs. 97,16,618 taxable under the head "Income from other sources" which has resulted in double taxation. 3) The CIT(A) ought to have held that since no dividend income has been received. the provision of Section

Thr Infrastructure Pte Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1)(1), Intl Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2022[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

sale of Compulsory 2 THR Infrastructure Pte. Ltd. Convertible Debentures (CCDs) by alleging that the Appellant is not eligible for the beneficial provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered between India and Singapore. 2.1 The Ld. AO and Ld. Panel basis own surmises and conjectures has grossly erred ... resident in Singapore. (c) OECD position on such conduit companies: Reliance is also placed on the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs report titled "Double Taxation Conventions and the Use of Conduit Companies" International Tax Avoidance and Evasion: Four Related Studies, Issues in International Taxation No 1 (OECD, Paris

Linklaters LLP, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) 3(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7307/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)

adjudication. 4. The issue arising in grounds no.7-9, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the denial of benefit of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Linklaters LLP ITA no.7307/Mum./2017 Agreement (“DTAA”). Since the adjudication of this issue is necessary for other issues raised in this appeal, therefore

Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5493/MUM/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 195Section 248Section 253

DAPE of CSA in India and hence the income is liable to be taxed in India under the provisions of the India South Africa Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) as well. The learned DR submitted that in the alternative, the assessee is liable to deduct TDS under section 194E

Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5492/MUM/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 195Section 248Section 253

DAPE of CSA in India and hence the income is liable to be taxed in India under the provisions of the India South Africa Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) as well. The learned DR submitted that in the alternative, the assessee is liable to deduct TDS under section 194E

Jubilant Pharmova Limited (Erstwhile Jubilant Life Sciences Limited), Gajraula vs. Pr. CIT Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1071/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. N.K Choudhryjubilant Pharmova Limited Vs. The Pr. Cit, (Erstwhile Jubilant Life Bareilly, Sciences Limited) Uttar Pradesh 244 001 Bhartiagram, Gajraula Jyotiba Phoolay Nagar, Amroha, Up – 244 223 Pan No. Aabcv 0200 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K.M Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Bareilly Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Jubilant Pharmova Limited Vs. Pcit 2 3. The Assessee Is A Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Chemicals, Chemical Intermediates, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients & Generation Of Power. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2016-17 On 28.11.2016 Declaring Total Of Income At Rs. 54,63,38,840/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter Assessment Was Framed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Vide Order Dated 17.02.2020 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs. 95,52,38,865/-.

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

therefore the same has been claimed as deduction in the current Jubilant Pharmova Limited vs. PCIT 8 assessment year i.e. 2016-17 to avoid double taxation of the same item. He thereafter submitted that subsequent to the reply given by the assessee, in the notices issued ... charged to P & L account therefore the same has been claimed as deduction in the current assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2016-17 to avoid double taxation of the same item”. (Refer PB 33 of the paper book). It is also a fact that after the receipt of the aforesaid reply

Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 4Section 5Section 6Section 90

which the assessee was entitled to in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also in accordance with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India and United Kingdome. 2 Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur. 2. In the facts and circumstance of the case ... claiming the credit of the taxes paid outside India, in accordance with Section 90/90A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also the double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India and United Kingdom. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts

Amrita Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Intl. Tax) Range 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6096/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2007-08
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reasons recorded:- REASONS FOR RE OPENING U/S 147 OF THE IT.Act 1961 Information was received by the Government of India under Article 28 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement from the French authorities in exercise of its sovereign powers that certain persons in India held bank accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva ... Amrita Jhaveri REASONS FOR RE-OPENING U/S 147 OF THE IT.Act, 1961 Information was received by the Government of India under Article 28 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement from the French authorities in exercise of its sovereign powers that certain persons in India held bank accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva

Amrita Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Intl. Tax) Range 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6095/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2006-07
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reasons recorded:- REASONS FOR RE OPENING U/S 147 OF THE IT.Act 1961 Information was received by the Government of India under Article 28 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement from the French authorities in exercise of its sovereign powers that certain persons in India held bank accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva ... Amrita Jhaveri REASONS FOR RE-OPENING U/S 147 OF THE IT.Act, 1961 Information was received by the Government of India under Article 28 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement from the French authorities in exercise of its sovereign powers that certain persons in India held bank accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva

Ranjitbhai Dhayabhai Panchal, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Navsari Circle, Navsari

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 10(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(VII)Section 56(2)(vii)

estate of the family is not exigible to taxation. The said exemption has been given on the pattern of a partnership firm to avoid double taxation of the same amount. In the case of partnership firm, when the partnership firm has been assessed to tax separately, then, the share

Shamshershah Pathan, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-31(1), Mumbai

In the result, Appellant’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 467/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry: A.Y : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

disagree with addition to income Rs. 38,06,592 u/s 68 of income tax act 1961 as the said assessment is erroneous due to double taxation of same income both under normal tax rate and concealment of income u/s 68. The assesses provides herewith complete receipt of proceed received, utilized

Goldman Sachs & Co., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1264/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

ground that these reimbursements are in the nature of Fees for Included Services (FIS) as per Article 12 of the India- US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and makes available technical knowledge, skills, processes, etc. Goldman Sachs & Co. ITA no.401/Mum./2018 ITA no.7490/Mum./2018 ITA no.6005/Mum./2019 ITA no.1264/Mum./2021 ... addition of Rs.18,00,83,986, in respect of project administration costs as Fees for Included Services (“FIS”) under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue are: The assessee was a partnership firm incorporated

Goldman Sachs & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6005/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

ground that these reimbursements are in the nature of Fees for Included Services (FIS) as per Article 12 of the India- US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and makes available technical knowledge, skills, processes, etc. Goldman Sachs & Co. ITA no.401/Mum./2018 ITA no.7490/Mum./2018 ITA no.6005/Mum./2019 ITA no.1264/Mum./2021 ... addition of Rs.18,00,83,986, in respect of project administration costs as Fees for Included Services (“FIS”) under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue are: The assessee was a partnership firm incorporated

Goldman Sachs & Co, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7490/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

ground that these reimbursements are in the nature of Fees for Included Services (FIS) as per Article 12 of the India- US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and makes available technical knowledge, skills, processes, etc. Goldman Sachs & Co. ITA no.401/Mum./2018 ITA no.7490/Mum./2018 ITA no.6005/Mum./2019 ITA no.1264/Mum./2021 ... addition of Rs.18,00,83,986, in respect of project administration costs as Fees for Included Services (“FIS”) under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue are: The assessee was a partnership firm incorporated

Goldman Sachs & Company, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 401/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

ground that these reimbursements are in the nature of Fees for Included Services (FIS) as per Article 12 of the India- US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and makes available technical knowledge, skills, processes, etc. Goldman Sachs & Co. ITA no.401/Mum./2018 ITA no.7490/Mum./2018 ITA no.6005/Mum./2019 ITA no.1264/Mum./2021 ... addition of Rs.18,00,83,986, in respect of project administration costs as Fees for Included Services (“FIS”) under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue are: The assessee was a partnership firm incorporated

ACIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Red Ice Production Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8061/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India of the said service providers in terms of Article 7 of the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the respective countries of the non-resident service providers. The 9 assessee therefore is not required to withhold

Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Maharashtra vs. ITO Wasrd-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

purchases to the tune of Rs.49,00,000/- (Rs.45,00,000 + Rs.4,00,000) was again added by the Assessing Officer, which amounts to double taxation. Since, the above amount of Rs.49,00,000/- was disallowed by Assessing Officer in original assessment, therefore the same amount of Rs.49

Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

purchases to the tune of Rs.49,00,000/- (Rs.45,00,000 + Rs.4,00,000) was again added by the Assessing Officer, which amounts to double taxation. Since, the above amount of Rs.49,00,000/- was disallowed by Assessing Officer in original assessment, therefore the same amount of Rs.49