“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

Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Kadiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hindupur

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

ITA 1862/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1862/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kadiri. Ward-1, Pan: Bibpr4972G Hindupur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Nvv Gopalal Krishna, Ca Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 09/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Kadiri (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22/10/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.” 2018-19. Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

submitted that if the entire deposits in the bank account of the assessee are treated as income of the assessee, it would result in double taxation of the same income, as the sale proceeds have already been accounted for by the respective concerns in their returns of income. In support ... offered the same in their respective returns of income. The addition of the same amount in the hands of the assessee will amount to double taxation. Therefore, in our considered opinion, these aspects require proper verification at the end of the Ld. AO along with examination of the additional evidences

Veera Reddy Posham, Nalgonda vs. ACIT, Central Circle1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1830/Hyd

ITA 1830/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.Nos.1829 & 1830/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2020-2021 & 2022-2023 Veera Reddy Posham, The Acit, Nalgonda – 508 246 Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad. Telangana. Pan Aijpp0376P (Applicant) (Respondent) -None- िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 10Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234FSection 250(6)Section 270ASection 80CSection 80C(2)(xvii)

does not pertain to my Individual capacity. This being so, any addition in respect of these transactions in my hands would lead to double taxation of the same income. Further, I am herewith giving the details of each transaction in the tabular manner enclosed with this reply as Annexure ... excel sheet are taxed in the hands of M/s. IRA Group Entities and taxing the same in his hands would lead to Double Taxation. From the seized Excel Sheets, it can be noticed that the appellant had given loan to IRA Group Entities. In para No. 5.2 of the Assessment

Veera Reddy Posham, Nalgonda vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1829/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita.Nos.1829 & 1830/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 10Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234FSection 250(6)Section 270ASection 80CSection 80C(2)(xvii)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1782/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

arising on account of reversal of excess provision was reduced in the computation of income for the year under consideration to avoid double taxation. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that there was no claim of deduction by the assessee in respect of interest under sections 234B and 234C ... year under consideration. The reduction made by the assessee in its computation of income is therefore only a consequential adjustment to avoid double taxation of the same amount. Therefore, in our considered view, the assessee has not claimed any deduction in respect of interest payable under sections 234B and 234C

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1781/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

Nathan Anil Rao, Mumbai vs. The ITO -Circle 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8666/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Soni, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Tiwari

Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

year under consideration, while computing the capital gains during the year under consideration, thereby leading to the double taxati thereby leading to the double taxation of the same income; 5. erred in solely relying on the valuation report issued to the buyer i.e. 5. erred in solely relying

Pbg International Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2890/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarpbg International Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-19(1), C.R. Building, Cb-4B, Dda Flats, Vs. Delhi-110002. Munirka, Delhi-110067. Pan-Aabcp8752E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Goyal, Ca Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By 20.01.2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ld. Cit(A)'] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income On 14.10.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,670/- Along With Computation Of Income, Auditors' Report & Audited Accounts Of The Assessee. Ld. Ao On Basis Of Incriminating & Tangible Information & After Following Due Process, Re-Opened Pbg International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 690

offered this amount for taxation as 'Turnover' in the Trading account of the assessee. If this amount is again added, it will amount to double taxation of same income which is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed on the following decision. Mahaveer Kumar Jian vs. CIT [2008] 92 taxmann.com

The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 44C

accrued and arisen from India and therefore taxable in India as per the provision of section 9(1)(v) r.w. Article 11 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") between India and Japan. The said interest has been received by the HO/Foreign Branches which has not been offered ... business in India is carried out through its branches in Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai. The assessee being a resident of Japan is entitled benefits of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan (“the DTAA”). The branches in India constitute a permanent establishments (PEs) of the assessee accordingly, the income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Saraf the Jewellers, Punjab

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1594/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) and Sh. Sahil RatraFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 65BSection 69C

justified. The 15 assessee already offered additional income for profit element on net shortage of stock. The disclosure adequately covers the income element. The double taxation could not be permitted. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of KSM Guruswami Nadar & Sons (19 Taxman 533) recognized that stock

Saraf the Jeweller, Chandigarh vs. The DCIT/ACIT Central Circle- 2, Chandigarh

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1232/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) and Sh. Sahil RatraFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 65BSection 69C

Lokasevaniratha D Kongadiyappa Memorial Education Society, Doddallapura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (Exemptions), Bangalore

In the result both the Appeals are restored back to the file of the Ld

ITA 2261/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CA

Section 133Section 139Section 142Section 148Section 148ASection 68

Assessee while computing the total income, the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer once again of the same income will result into a double taxation. It was further the claim of ITA Nos. 2260-2261/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 7 the Ld. Authorised Representative that in case ... already been disclosed as income under the income and expenditure account as income u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act would necessarily amount to double taxation. However, the Assessee is also required to explain the nature and source of the amount deposited in the bank account in cash, whether

Lokasevaniratha D Kongadiyappa Memorial Education Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions) Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result both the Appeals are restored back to the file of the Ld

ITA 2260/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CA

Section 133Section 139Section 142Section 148Section 148ASection 68

Shri. Shanthisagar Co Op Credit Society Limited, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 2081/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

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

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Jitendra Vallabhji Dedhia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9207/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarincome Tax Officer, Jitendra Vallabhji Mumbai Dedhia, Room No. 304, 3Rd Vs. 4, Kaushik Niwas, L. Floor, Piramal N. Road, Matunga, Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 019 Parel, Mumbai – 400 012. Pan/Gir No. Afmpd4199N (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the firm. Therefore, it was argued that taxing the same amount in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation of the same income. 7. The assessee also contended that the provisions of section 68 of the Act were not applicable to the facts

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Sheetal Jewelleryhouse LLP, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 8124/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpiaacit 19(3), Mumbai Sheetal Jewellery House Llp Room No. 513, 5Th Floor, Piramal Vs. 503/504, Brahans Business Park, Chamber, Parel Mumbai 400012 Off Mahakali, Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acqfs9693D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे / Assessee By: Shri. Paresh Shaparia /Revenue By: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 02.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee [J.M]: Instant Appeal Of The Revenue Was Preferred Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Cit(A)"] Order Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] Order Passed For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Date Of Order 25.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao"], Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Date Of Order 26.12.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 36

contention that the income has already suffered tax in an earlier year is correct, taxation of the same amount again would result in double taxation, which is impermissible in law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file

ACIT Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Grenic Tiles Pvt Ltd, Morbi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas

ITA 682/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 624/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

cash deposits of Rs.13,30,729/- already forming part of the recorded sales/receivables, which have been offered to tax, thereby leading to impermissible double taxation. (7). The addition sustained is based on mere suspicion and presumptions, without rebutting the assessee's detailed explanation regarding collection from debtors for sales consideration

Grenic Tiles Private Limited, Wankaner-Morbi vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 1(1) RKT, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas

ITA 624/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 624/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Ravipati Radha Bai, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2022/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.2022/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Ravipati Radha Bai [[ The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 028. Ward-7(1), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaihr4276B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri H Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri H Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 250

estimating the income at 8% as well as addition on account of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee which is a double taxation of the income already offered by the assessee in her return of income along with tax audit report in Form 3CD. The learned Authorised ... income under individual PAN of the assessee whereas the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order under HUF PAN and that has resulted in double taxation of the same income. He has thus submitted that when the appeal of the assessee is not admitted for adjudication on merits, it will

Suresha Chikkajala Ramakrishnappa, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1292/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan , AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)

Section 250Section 68

same time, it is equally well settled that TDS is only a mode of tax collection and cannot result in double taxation of the same income. If the income has already been offered to tax in a subsequent year, the same cannot again be taxed in the present year merely ... have been duly offered to tax, no addition shall survive in the year under consideration. The AO shall also ensure that there is no double taxation of the same income. 35.4 Before parting, it is equally important to note that the assessee should not claim the benefit

Ge Engine Services Llc, United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

ITA 3700/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)

submitted that the interpretation proposed by the Ld. AO is erroneous as the same will render a tax treaty otiose in case of economic double taxation i.e., taxability of the cross-border income in the hands of different taxpayers. Hence, the action of the Ld. AO denying the treaty benefit ... submitted that the interpretation proposed by the Ld. AO is erroneous as the same will render a tax treaty otiose in case of economic double taxation i.e., taxability of the cross-border income in the hands of different taxpayers and requested for allowing the benefit of the India-USA DTAA