← 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

Basf Se, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2070/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 195(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

ambit of the term "fees for technical services" under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12(4) of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA'). 3. erred in not appreciating that the consideration received from the Indian affiliates as per the cost sharing agreement ... liable to tax in India. 3 BASF INDIA Ltd. BASF SE ITA No.552,2070/Mum/2017 Levy of surcharge and cases on the rates prescribed under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') 4. erred in levying surcharge and education cases while computing the total tax payable on the assessed income of the Appellant

Smt. Lizy George, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 398/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

assessee (General Merchandise and tobacco), thus there was different stream of revenue, i.e. other than business receipts and therefore cannot amount to double taxation. c. In the present case of the appellant, the credits are all business credits and the same are the source of the working capital

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), New Delhi vs. Juventus Estate Ltd., New Dlhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1436/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

already been taxed in the settlement petition of the assessee group, making addition once again in the hence of this assessee will amount to double taxation of the same income. Therefore, ground number 5 – 7 of the appeal are dismissed. 012. In the result ITA number 1423/M/2022 filed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), New Delhi vs. Juventus Estate Ltd., New Dlhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1424/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

already been taxed in the settlement petition of the assessee group, making addition once again in the hence of this assessee will amount to double taxation of the same income. Therefore, ground number 5 – 7 of the appeal are dismissed. 012. In the result ITA number 1423/M/2022 filed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), New Delhi vs. Juventus Estate Ltd., New Dlhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1423/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

already been taxed in the settlement petition of the assessee group, making addition once again in the hence of this assessee will amount to double taxation of the same income. Therefore, ground number 5 – 7 of the appeal are dismissed. 012. In the result ITA number 1423/M/2022 filed

ACIT Cent. Cir 6(4), Mumbai vs. Juventus Estate Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2379/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

already been taxed in the settlement petition of the assessee group, making addition once again in the hence of this assessee will amount to double taxation of the same income. Therefore, ground number 5 – 7 of the appeal are dismissed. 012. In the result ITA number 1423/M/2022 filed

ACIT Cent. Cir 6(4), Mumbai vs. Juventus Estate Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2377/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

already been taxed in the settlement petition of the assessee group, making addition once again in the hence of this assessee will amount to double taxation of the same income. Therefore, ground number 5 – 7 of the appeal are dismissed. 012. In the result ITA number 1423/M/2022 filed

Kismet Exports & Investments Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 7320/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250(6)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 57

into consideration that the appellant company bought back shares from a non-resident shareholder who was a resident of Singapore and as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India & Singapore, Article 13 specifically provides that Capital I.T.A. No. 7320/Mum/2019 5 Gains arising to a resident of Singapore ... issue, the assessee bought back shares from non-residential shareholder, Mr. Dileep Raghu Nath,who was a resident of Singapore, and as per the double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore, Article 13 specifically provides that capital gains arising to a resident of Singapore are subject

Bsr Infratech India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 697/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 199Section 234ASection 270ASection 43Section 43C

Balance Retention Money pending 47841586 4.2 In view of the above taxing the same amount in different years amounts to double taxation of the income which is already offered to tax. Further, assessee relied on various judicial decisions upholding the view of Retention money forming part of income and being ... same in the subsequent assessment as income of the assessee and bringing the same amount to tax in this assessment year amount to double taxation, which cannot b permitted. 6.6 Further, Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Stewarts & Lloyds of Indi Ltd. in ITA No.1169/Kol/2017 & Others vide order

Jigana, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 535/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 69A

earlier years and therefore treating the cash deposits made out of such earlier year income and past savings-as unexplained income has led to double taxation. GROUND RELATING TO SECTION 115BBE 4. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO in computing the tax u/s 115BBE

DCIT Intl Tax Cir-4(3) (2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Win on Shipping, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 2079/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla/For Respondent: Shri Somendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 90(4)

income of INR 1,55,96,110/- which was claimed to be exempt from tax in India in terms of Agreement For Avoidance of Double Taxation And Prevention of Fiscal Evasion between India and UAE (hereinafter referred to as ‗Tax Treaty‘). The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny ... Concern has been expressed regarding the clause in the Finance Bill that amends section 90 of the Income-tax Act that deals with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements. Sub-section (4) of section 90 was introduced last year by Finance Act, 2012. That sub-section requires an assessee to produce

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1691/CHNY/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

appreciate that in respect of payments made to BASF SE, the same cannot be treated as Fees for technical services, in view of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that no technology was made available to the appellant and accordingly ... ITAT Kol 5. DCIT vs. KPMG [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai) 6. DCIT vs. Ernst & Young P Ltd. 32 ITR(T) 639 (Kolkata) 7. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany 8. Emersons Process Management vs. Ad. CIT 9. DIT vs.AP Moller Maersk A/s 7. On the other hand

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1690/CHNY/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

appreciate that in respect of payments made to BASF SE, the same cannot be treated as Fees for technical services, in view of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that no technology was made available to the appellant and accordingly ... ITAT Kol 5. DCIT vs. KPMG [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai) 6. DCIT vs. Ernst & Young P Ltd. 32 ITR(T) 639 (Kolkata) 7. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany 8. Emersons Process Management vs. Ad. CIT 9. DIT vs.AP Moller Maersk A/s 7. On the other hand

Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3122/CHNY/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

appreciate that in respect of payments made to BASF SE, the same cannot be treated as Fees for technical services, in view of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that no technology was made available to the appellant and accordingly ... ITAT Kol 5. DCIT vs. KPMG [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai) 6. DCIT vs. Ernst & Young P Ltd. 32 ITR(T) 639 (Kolkata) 7. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany 8. Emersons Process Management vs. Ad. CIT 9. DIT vs.AP Moller Maersk A/s 7. On the other hand

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1187/CHNY/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

appreciate that in respect of payments made to BASF SE, the same cannot be treated as Fees for technical services, in view of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that no technology was made available to the appellant and accordingly ... ITAT Kol 5. DCIT vs. KPMG [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai) 6. DCIT vs. Ernst & Young P Ltd. 32 ITR(T) 639 (Kolkata) 7. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany 8. Emersons Process Management vs. Ad. CIT 9. DIT vs.AP Moller Maersk A/s 7. On the other hand

Kusuma Cashews, Karkala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 511/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

once taxed in the original assessment order as well as bringing the same to tax in the order under section 263, which amounts to double taxation, since the said sum of Rs.50,00,000 is a business income declared as stock in trade. 4. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income

Medreich Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 451/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 451/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Medreich Ltd., No. 12/8, Medreich The Assistant House, Commissioner Of Saraswati Ammal Income Tax, Street, Central Circle – Maruti Seva Nagar, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 033. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm1458Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Acit, Central Circle – 1(2), Bangalore Dated 26/04/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1.1 The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore (`A0') Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act) In The Manner Passed

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

451/Bang/2022 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 15.2.2018 observed that: "There

M/.S Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed in respect of the issues argued and considered hereinabove

ITA 2595/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner Of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aaccn1140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29/10/2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate
Section 143(2)

working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and lones 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

DCIT Central Cir (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Raksha Bullion, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit, Cc-2(1), 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Raksha Bullion, 134/136, Moti Building, 3Rd Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aahfr2224C ..... Assessee C.O. No. 78/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/S Raksha Bullion, 134/136, Moti Building, 3Rd Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aahfr2224C ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-2(1), 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. ...... Assessee Appellant/Revenue By : Sh. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Sh. Vimal Punmiya, Ca Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022

For Appellant: Sh. Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

Shree Sai International has already been offered as income by the: appellant. By treating it again as undisclosed income, will lead to double taxation of the said amount of Rs.9,13,83,600/-. In my view, if the AO consider the impugned sales as bogus and hollow, the logical course

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 126/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri, K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 43B

learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the proviso to Section 201 are applicable to this case and the disallowance made amounts to double taxation;” 31. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that assessee has made payment to GMR Sports P Ltd. being the franchisee