← 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

Microsoft Regional Sale Pte. Ltd (Formerly Known As Microsoft Regional Sales Corp.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal in 1912/Del/2022 is dismissed as infructuous and the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1912/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1912/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 1913/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd. Vs Acit, (Formerly Known As Microsoft Regional Circle-2(2)(1), Sales Corporation), C/O. Mr. Nirmal International Taxation, Malpani Ernst & Young Llp, 3Rd & 6Th New Delhi Floor, Worldmark 1, Igi Airport Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm1638A Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Gangadhar Panda, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.01.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd. is not in the nature of “Royalty” under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) or India – USA/Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’).” 3. For the A.Y. 2018-19 (ITA No. 1912/Del/2022), the addition has been made by the AO on protective basis and substantially

Matrix Cellular International Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6916/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Khanna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 40

disallowance by contending that the overseas entities to whom payments were made are not chargeable to tax in India in terms of the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs), however, the Assessing Officer was not convinced. Ultimately, he disallowed the payment made by invoking the provisions of Section

Nirav Bipinbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 90/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.90/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Nirav Bipinbhai Vaghasiya Income Tax Officer, 59, Shradha Deep Society, Ward-3(2)(1), Surat Vs Singanpore, Causewayroad, Ved Road, Surat-395004 Pan No: Amupv 4454 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 16.01.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac”/Ld.Cit(A) Dated 28.12.2021 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 23.10.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing Tds Nirav B Vaghasiya Credit Of Rs.2,21,000 Though The Same Is Duly Reflected In Form No 26As Of The Appellant. 1.1 In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing The Tds Credit Of Rs.2,21,000 Though The Capital Gain On Sale Of Property Was Offered For Taxation In The Hands Of Partnership Form & No Revenue Loss Incurred To The Department. 1.2 In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing Tds Credit To The Appellant Though No Income Against Such Tds Credit Was Earned By The Appellant Against Such Tds Credit.

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194ISection 254(1)

partnership firm. No credit of TDS was claimed by partnership firm and assessee claimed such TDS credit in his case to avoid double taxation. The 4 Nirav B Vaghasiya assessee claimed credit of such TDS reflected in Form-26AS. The capital gains of sale of immovable property was offered ... partnership firm. No credit of TDS was claimed by partnership firm and assessee claimed such TDS credit in his case to avoid double taxation. The assessee claimed credit of such TDS reflected in Form-26AS. The capital gains of sale of immovable property was offered by partnership firm and there

Kony Inc., Usa vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 616/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

amount of Rs.7,27,33,773/- received from sale of licence to various Indian customers as royalty under Article 12(3) of Indian – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee, a non-resident corporate entity is a tax resident of United States of America

Inter Continental Hotels Group (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4608/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 144C(3)

India’) towards provision of Management Support Charge to be in the nature of Fee for Technical Services (‘FTS’) under Article 12 of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’/Treaty). 1.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed ... support services to the Indian subsidiary is in the nature of Fee For Technical Service (FTS) under Article 12(4)(b) of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated under the laws of Singapore

Inter Continental Hotels Group (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2986/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 144C(3)

India’) towards provision of Management Support Charge to be in the nature of Fee for Technical Services (‘FTS’) under Article 12 of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’/Treaty). 1.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed ... support services to the Indian subsidiary is in the nature of Fee For Technical Service (FTS) under Article 12(4)(b) of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated under the laws of Singapore

Kony Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 7462/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

amount of Rs.7,27,33,773/- received from sale of licence to various Indian customers as royalty under Article 12(3) of Indian – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee, a non-resident corporate entity is a tax resident of United States of America

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1) International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1567/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

have held that the Appellant has no income chargeable to tax in India either under the Act or under the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the United Kingdom ("DTAA"). 3. That the Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP ought to have held that no income ... assessee is not entitled to the 8 | P a g e ITA Nos.1566 & 1567/Del/2022 AYs: 2018-19 & 2019-20 benefits of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Further, he held that the assessee has a dependent agent PE in India in the form of ITQPL. Hence, the business profits

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1566/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

have held that the Appellant has no income chargeable to tax in India either under the Act or under the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the United Kingdom ("DTAA"). 3. That the Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP ought to have held that no income ... assessee is not entitled to the 8 | P a g e ITA Nos.1566 & 1567/Del/2022 AYs: 2018-19 & 2019-20 benefits of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Further, he held that the assessee has a dependent agent PE in India in the form of ITQPL. Hence, the business profits

Yamazen Machinery Tools India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-27(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 582/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 192Section 195Section 40Section 9

treated as fee for technical services (FTS) under section 9(i)(vii) of the Act read with Article 12 of India – Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), and since, the assessee has failed to withhold tax under section 195 of the Act in respect of such payment, why the payment

Naresh Kantilal Thacker, Gandhidham vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 28/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

I.T.A No. 28/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 3 Naresh Kantilal Thacker vs. ITO proposing to tax the same transaction again will amount to double taxation, which is not permissible under law and therefore requested to accept the returned income. 2.3. The ld. A.O. considered the above submissions ... adventure of trade and liable to be taxed in the assessment year 2014-15 is correct in law. There is no question of double taxation on sale of the above land, since the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the income offered by the assessee

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi vs. Sabre Decision Technologies International Llc, Usa

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7354/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

valid Tax Residency Certificate ('TRC') issued by tax authorities in United States of America ('USA') and hence the benefit of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') has not been claimed by the assessee and the income has been offered under the provisions ... transmission services to customers, payment from the customers cannot be termed as Royalty for the use of a process or equipment under the respective double taxation avoidance agreement. • In Bharti Airtel Limited (ITA 3593 to 3596 Del/2012), the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT held that payment of Inter-connect Usage Charges

Sabre Decision Technologies International Llc, New Delhi vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5782/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

valid Tax Residency Certificate ('TRC') issued by tax authorities in United States of America ('USA') and hence the benefit of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') has not been claimed by the assessee and the income has been offered under the provisions ... transmission services to customers, payment from the customers cannot be termed as Royalty for the use of a process or equipment under the respective double taxation avoidance agreement. • In Bharti Airtel Limited (ITA 3593 to 3596 Del/2012), the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT held that payment of Inter-connect Usage Charges

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajiv Ratan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1434/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit, Cc -6(4), Vs. Shri Rajiv Rattan Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Air India Building, Vasant Vihar, Nariman Point, New Delhi - 110057 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 126/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2011-12) Shri Rajiv Rattan Vs. The Dcit, Cc -6(4), 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, Vasant Vihar, Air India Building, New Delhi - 110057 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Riddhi Mishra Respondent By : Meet Shah

For Appellant: Smt. Riddhi MishraFor Respondent: Meet Shah
Section 153CSection 245D(4)

Settlement Commission, had been dealt with in settlement proceedings of another person and said order had become final, in view of possibility of double taxation for one income, issue in case of assessee was to be reconsidered by Settlement Commission. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under ... case of PJ. If that being so, there is a possibility that such a subsequent consideration by the Settlement Commission could be deemed as double taxation, in case the order passed ITA No. 1434/Mum/2022 and C.O. No.126/Mum/2022 7 The DCIT, Central Circle-6(4) Vs. Shri Rajiv Rattan

Dy CIT Cent. Cir.-8(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Raj Wespower P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 1884/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-Cc-8(3), M/S Jsw Energy (Barmer) Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Limited, (Formerly Known Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. As M/S Raj Westpower Pvt. M.K. Road, Ltd.), Jindal Mansion, 5A, Mumbai-400020. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacr 8812 L Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. T. Shankar, Cit-Dr & Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Ar : Date Of Hearing 18/10/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Revenue by Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR &

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-25(3), Mumbai vs. Span Associates, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4258/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manish Ajudiya, DR
Section 40A(3)

books of account and, therefore making additions of the same would books of account and, therefore making additions of the same would amount to double taxation. amount to double taxation. 6.3.8 In view of the facts and ratio of the decisions of Hon'ble Courts and 6.3.8 In view

M/S. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2582/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and lones and advances to international transaction would amount to double taxation. Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Orange Business Services India Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 6570/Del/2016 vide its order dated

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

ITA 990/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Harishankar Lal, DR
Section 148

offered so, then pass , and if offered so, then pass necessary or necessary order for assessment year 2012 assessment year 2012-13, for avoiding double taxation of , for avoiding double taxation of supervisory charges of supervisory charges of ₹28,17,00,000 /-. 2.1 The relevant finding rejecting the contention

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax International Taxation-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

Assessing Officer ('AO') has erred in considering Infrastructure Data Centre charges of INR 2,85,01,345/- taxable as Royalty under the India - Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 3. Other service charges taxed as Royalty The AO has erred in considering Other Service Charges (Referral Fees ... Income 3,72,83,326 4. The assessee claimed the aforesaid receipt as not taxable in India under Article 12 of the India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA‟). The AO vide draft assessment order dated 15/09/2021 passed under section 143(3) of the Act treated the aforesaid receipts

Unilever Industries Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Range 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 1015/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleunilever Industries Pvt Vs. Acit, Range – 1(3)(1) Ltd., Room No 504, 5 Floor, Unilever House, Bd Aayakar Bhavan, Sawant Marg, Chakala, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai -400099. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0791P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala & Mr.Hiten Chande.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Jayant Jhaveri.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) & U/Sec144C(13) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Order U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 26.02.2021.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Unilever Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. General: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing) -4(2)(2) ("Tpo") Subsequent To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Drp Has Erred In Assessing The Total Income At Rs. 152,67,16,425 As Against Returned Income Of Rs. 116,80,08,280 Computed By The Appellant. 2. Parti-Transfer Pricing Adjustments: Transfer Pricing ('Tp') Adjustment On Account Of Benchmarking & Allocation Of Royalty In Respect Of Provision Of Scientific & Technical Services ('Contract R&D')

For Appellant: Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala &For Respondent: Mr. Jayant Jhaveri.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

questionnaire was issued. Whereas the case was selected for complete scrutiny under e-assessment scheme 2019 on the fallowing issues as under: i. Whether double taxation relief (and income) has been shown correctly in the return income. ii. Whether refund claim is justified. Unilever Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. iii. Whether