← 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

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1228/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 14ASection 250Section 37

resulting the double disallowance of the same: interest expenditure to extent of Rs.88,74,327 which tantamount to double taxation. It is therefore submitted that necessary direction should be given in this regard. 6. Your appellant craves to add, alter, or amend any of the grounds of appeal

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4229/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 14ASection 250Section 37

resulting the double disallowance of the same: interest expenditure to extent of Rs.88,74,327 which tantamount to double taxation. It is therefore submitted that necessary direction should be given in this regard. 6. Your appellant craves to add, alter, or amend any of the grounds of appeal

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3004/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 14ASection 250Section 37

resulting the double disallowance of the same: interest expenditure to extent of Rs.88,74,327 which tantamount to double taxation. It is therefore submitted that necessary direction should be given in this regard. 6. Your appellant craves to add, alter, or amend any of the grounds of appeal

Ab Inbev Gcc Services India Private Limited (Earlier Known As Gcc Services India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 290/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Ab Inbev Gcc Services India Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier Known As Gcc Services India Pvt. Ltd.), The Deputy 12Th & 13Th Floor, Commissioner Of Peridot Block, Bagmane Income Tax, World Technology Centre Circle 3(1)(1), Sez, Vs. Bangalore. Marthalli Road, Kr Puram, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan: Aafcg8223M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 21/02/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 244ASection 270ASection 92B

working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables as loans and advances to associated enterprise 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

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

circumstances of the case, 4) Grounds on adopting the percentage completion method of recognition of income for the impugned assessment year has resulted in double taxation which is impermissible in law. a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that bringing to tax the income by adopting ... percentage completion method has resulted in double taxation which is impermissible in law. b) Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have given credit for the taxes paid on the same income in the subsequent years on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5) Grounds

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

circumstances of the case, 4) Grounds on adopting the percentage completion method of recognition of income for the impugned assessment year has resulted in double taxation which is impermissible in law. a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that bringing to tax the income by adopting ... percentage completion method has resulted in double taxation which is impermissible in law. b) Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have given credit for the taxes paid on the same income in the subsequent years on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5) Grounds

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

circumstances of the case, 4) Grounds on adopting the percentage completion method of recognition of income for the impugned assessment year has resulted in double taxation which is impermissible in law. a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that bringing to tax the income by adopting ... percentage completion method has resulted in double taxation which is impermissible in law. b) Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have given credit for the taxes paid on the same income in the subsequent years on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5) Grounds

Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 200/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana
Section 92C

loan is to be repaid normally determines the rate of return on the money lent, i.e. the rate of interest. Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions (Third Edition) under Article 11 in paragraph 115 states as under:- "The existing differences in the levels of interest rates do not depend

M/S United Breweries Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 481/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT –DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

same income once again in the hands of the Assessee under normal provisions as well as 40 M/s.United Breweries Limited. under MAT leading to double taxation which is not permissible. The trust being a separate Assessee under the provisions of the act and considering that the above arrangement has been

A2 Jewels, Gujarat vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 487/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. A2 Jewels V. Acit - Central Circle – 1(3) 204, Spna Apartment Pratishtha Bhavan Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat - 395003 Pan: Aamfa7751J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

been substantively added in the case of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, thereby making the same addition in the hands of two assessees leading to double taxation 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition

Fireeye Cybersecurity Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 292/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 292/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mandiant Cyber Security Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Fireeye The Deputy Cybersecurity Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 5, Front Wing Circle – 3(1)(1), Salarpuria Infinity, Vs. Bengaluru. 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan: Aaccf1341A Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Passed By National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 30/04/2021 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

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

Draegerwerk Ag & Co.Kgaa, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 547/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 274Section 92C

ought to be quashed. Income from corporate guarantee not taxable in India under the India- Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA) 3. erred in making an adjustment of INR 1,21,58,130 to the total income of the Appellant under Section 92CA(3) of the Act in respect ... corporate guarantee would be taxable in India in the hands of the assessee under Article 21 of 4 M/s. Draegerwork AG & Co. KGAA the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') between India and Germany. For the purpose of benchmarking the impugned transaction, the ld.TPO considered the arm's length guarantee commission

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

Taxation)- 4(2)(1), Mumbai, ('AO') to reject the Appellant's claim for the benefit of the non-discrimination clause of the India- Korea Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') and taxing the Appellant's income at the rate 40% (plus surcharge and education cess) instead of at the rate applicable ... income tax return filed by the assessee, it was pointed out that in view of Article 25(1) of the India Korea Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [(1987) 165 ITR Stat 191; the then Indo Korea tax treaty, in short], which provides that “nationals of a Contracting State shall

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

Taxation)- 4(2)(1), Mumbai, ('AO') to reject the Appellant's claim for the benefit of the non-discrimination clause of the India- Korea Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') and taxing the Appellant's income at the rate 40% (plus surcharge and education cess) instead of at the rate applicable ... income tax return filed by the assessee, it was pointed out that in view of Article 25(1) of the India Korea Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [(1987) 165 ITR Stat 191; the then Indo Korea tax treaty, in short], which provides that “nationals of a Contracting State shall

Kamdhenu Departmental Stores Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2172/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountat Member Kamdhenu Departmental Vs. Acit, Cc – 7(3) Stores Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No.5, Patliputra Chs Mumbai.-400020. Ltd., Four Bungalow, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr2811F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Rushabh Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Tejinderpalsinghanand.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Rushabh Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.TejinderPalSinghAnand.DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

facts and law in not appreciating that the cash sales have already been offered to tax and addition thereof again will lead to double taxation which is against the principles of law. 2. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or drop all or any of the above grounds ... which was already offered to tax by asssessee and admitted by the revenue as revenue receipt, impugned addition made under section 68,resulting in double taxation, were liable to be deleted” Kamdhenu Departmental Stores Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. ii. Similarly Honble Tribunal Hyderabad Bench in the case of Sri Lateef Abdul

Aker Solutions India Sdn Bhd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)- Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1004/मुं/2022("न.व .2016-17) Aker Solutions India Sdn Bhd Level 16 Integra Towers The Landmark 348, Jalan Tun Razak, Kaula Lumpur, Malaysia - 50400 Pan: Aaica-1114-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax( International Taxation), Circle 1(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Hemen Chandariya & Anish Thacker ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 16/03/2022 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) In Upholding The Assessment Order Taxing The Interest On Income Tax Refund As Business Income Under 2 Article-7 Of The India- Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (Dtaa) @40% + Surcharge @ 5% + Cess @ 3%.

For Appellant: S/Shri Hemen Chandariya and Anish ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar
Section 244A

upholding the assessment order taxing the interest on income tax refund as business income under 2 Article-7 of the India- Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) @40% + surcharge @ 5% + cess @ 3%. 3. Shri Hemen Chandariya appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee had received interest under

Capgemini S.E. (Formerly Known As Capgemini S A), Navi Mumbai vs. Asstt.Comm. of Income Tax(It), Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed

ITA 1252/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5970/मुं/2019("न.व .2015-16) आअसं. 1252/मुं/2021("न.व .2016-17) Capgemini Se ( Formerly Known As Capgemini Sa), C/O. Capgemini Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd. Block -3, C-Wing, 4Th Floor, Capgemini Knowledge Park, Yosemite, Thane- Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 708 Pan: Aadcc-5353-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Int-Tax), Circle -2(1)(1), Room No.1713, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri M.M.Golvala & Raunak Vardhan ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144 C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year 2015-16 (Order Dated 16/07/2019) & For Assessment

For Appellant: S/Shri M.M.Golvala and Raunak VardhanFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar
Section 144

held that the guarantee commission charged by the assessee from its Indian AE is taxable under Article -23 of the India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that taxability of guarantee commission is a recurring issue . In AY 2009-10 similar addition

Capgmini Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int-Tax) CC-2(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed

ITA 5970/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5970/मुं/2019("न.व .2015-16) आअसं. 1252/मुं/2021("न.व .2016-17) Capgemini Se ( Formerly Known As Capgemini Sa), C/O. Capgemini Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd. Block -3, C-Wing, 4Th Floor, Capgemini Knowledge Park, Yosemite, Thane- Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 708 Pan: Aadcc-5353-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Int-Tax), Circle -2(1)(1), Room No.1713, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri M.M.Golvala & Raunak Vardhan ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144 C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year 2015-16 (Order Dated 16/07/2019) & For Assessment

For Appellant: S/Shri M.M.Golvala and Raunak VardhanFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar
Section 144

held that the guarantee commission charged by the assessee from its Indian AE is taxable under Article -23 of the India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that taxability of guarantee commission is a recurring issue . In AY 2009-10 similar addition

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

opinion, the additions made under the income from business by computing the income based on percentage completion method will result in double taxation which is impermissible in law. 8.1 In view of the above, the proposition of the learned Assessing Officer that the income offered in the subsequent years ... income of the impugned assessment year will result in double taxation which is impermissible in law. 8.2 We place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor (1966) (60 ITR 74) (SC), wherein held that: ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

opinion, the additions made under the income from business by computing the income based on percentage completion method will result in double taxation which is impermissible in law. 8.1 In view of the above, the proposition of the learned Assessing Officer that the income offered in the subsequent years ... income of the impugned assessment year will result in double taxation which is impermissible in law. 8.2 We place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor (1966) (60 ITR 74) (SC), wherein held that: ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17