“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

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1715/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

therefore it is mere application of tax paid income of earlier year and taxing the same again in the current year would lead to double taxation: 6. erred in adding interim bonus paid amounting to ₹.1503,70,06,000 as disclosed Form AR-A without appreciating the fact that difference ... should not be added to the income of the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal, as this will lead to double taxation Addition on account of income directly credited in shareholders' account amounting to Rs. 33,96,00,000 15. erred in confirming the action

ACIT (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.P.Morgan Indian Investment Company Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue becomes infructuous as dismissed

ITA 2382/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-3(1)(1), M/S J. P. Morgan India R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air Investment Company India Building, Nariman Mauritius Limited, बनाम/ Point, Mumbai-400 021 C/O- Srb & Associates Llp, Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacf0626J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 41/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S J. P. Morgan India Acit-3(1)(1), Investment Company R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air India Mauritius Limited, Building, Nariman Point, बनाम/ C/O- Srb & Associates Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 18.05.2022 & 23.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144C

does not have the jurisdiction to tax the shipping income of the non-resident entity........." 16.1 Eminent author Klaus Vogel in his commentary on "Double Taxation Conventions" has opined as under:- "19.[Allocation of taxing rights; exclusive or shared] For the purpose of eliminating double taxation, the Convention establishes ... exclusive right to tax is conferred on one of the Contracting States. The other Contracting State is thereby prevented from taxing those items and double taxation is avoided. As a rule, this exclusive right to tax is conferred on the State of residence. In case of other items of income

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

more beneficial to him.  Circular No. 333 dated April 12, 1982 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) provides that where a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provides for a particular mode of computation of income, the same  would be followed irrespective of the provisions of the Income ... assessee’s tax liabilities under section 115JA of the Act, it was contended by the assessee that as per Article–7 of India–U.K. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) only business profit directly attributable to the Indian branches can be taxed in India. Thus, it was submitted, the assessee

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 212/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.P.C.Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92C

facts, in disregarding that the remittance towards recovery of ESOP charges is not taxable under the provisions of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 2.14. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts by contending that the said ESOP cross charge is liable to TDS under section ... same is also liable to TDS under section 195 of the Act on the reimbursement to the Ultimate Holding Company thereby resulting in double taxation of same amount. 2.15. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts by contradicting his own statement by stating that in one hand

Barclays Capital Mauritius Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, It 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7209/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.7209/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2016-17) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1) 4Th Floor, Room No.427, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate With Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala & Shri Harshit Sangoi. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Milind S. Chavan & Nihar Samal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate with Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala &For Respondent: S/Shri Milind S. Chavan & Nihar Samal

Section 143(3)

India- Mauritius DTAA are not satisfied. The dividend income earned by the assessee falls within the residuary clause i.e. Article-22 of India- Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and, hence not taxable in India. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that identical issue had come up before ... Explanation may result in 7 taxation of dividend income declared by a foreign company outside India” and that such a situation “may cause unintended double taxation and would be contrary to the generally accepted principles of source rule as well as the object and purpose of the amendment made

Asst CIT 27(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Merit Magnum Construction, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6657/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Sh. Mahiita Nair, CIT-DR

Section 292CSection 68Section 69CSection 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

warranted. Since the said income is already offered to tax by the appellant, addition either u/s 28 or 68 will amount to double taxation of the same. The assessee has received payments from buyers through proper banking channel and very nominal amounts like

Spe India Films Holding Llc, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Intl Tax) -4(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result ground no-2 raised by the assessee- is fully allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalspe India Films Holding Llc C/O, Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Centre, Tower No.3, 27Th Floor-32Nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaocs1827L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Narimaon Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.J. Pardiwala/Paras Savla Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Drp’] Dated 06.01.2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant, Objects To The Order Dated 19 January 2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Sh. P.j. Pardiwala/Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Keshari

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

interest on income tax refund twice in the Computation Sheet dated 19 January 2022 attached to the aforesaid assessment order, thereby resulting in double taxation. 2.3. The learned ACIT further erred in taxing the additional interest income at a higher tax rate of 30% (plus surcharge and education cess) while ... assessee. However, as per the computation sheet annexed to the assessment order the interest income has been added again and this tantamount to double taxation. In this situation with the given facts, we direct the AO to delete the additional interest of Rs. 28,48,508/- from the total income

Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte.Ltd Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Tax) 2(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1781/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1781/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2019-20) Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd. (Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.) C/O. Dhruva Advisors Llp 1101 & 1102, 11Th Floor, One World Centre, Tower 2B, 841 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aadcd – 4348-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2(1)(2), Room No.1612, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sunil Moti Lala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Moti LalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)

outside India, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more

Anuj Bhagwati, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1845/MUM/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Anuj Bhagwati Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Nishant House, 6, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Carmichael Road, Room No.533, 5Th Floor, Cumballa Hill S.O, Mumbai-400086 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aehpb1858C Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Sinha.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90

claimed as Foreign Tax Credit(FTC). The assessee is eligible to claim Tax Relief U/sec 90 of the Act as per Double Taxation Avoidance and Agreement (DTAA) with the government of USA and the return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 3 Anuj Bhagwati ... rules prescribes the procedure for claiming the tax foreign tax credit. 6. We find under Section 90 of the income tax Act allows double taxation relief in respect of agreements with foreign countries or specified territories and also 4 Anuj Bhagwati ITA No. 1844 & 45/M/2022 Section

Anuj Bhagwati, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1844/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Sinha.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90

Sonakshi Sinha, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1704/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Commissioner Of Income-Tax Sonakshi Sinha (Appeals) 49A, Ramayan, 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Mumbai-400 049 Centre (Nfac) Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bepps6007F Assessee By : S/Shri K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ajay Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR

Section 139Section 143Section 90

22/9/2018 at total income of ₹ 185,390,330/–. The case was selected for scrutiny under the limited scrutiny criteria for the issue of double taxation relief u/s 90/91. The requisite notice u/s 143 (2) of the act was issued. 05. The learned AO found that assessee has claimed foreign ... further noted by the AO that notice u/s 143 (2) was issued to the assessee on 29/9/2019 showing specifically for examination of the double taxation relief u/s 90/91 and further notice was issued on 10/1/2020 and therefore after 2 notices served on the assessee, form number 67 was then uploaded

Navunda Abdulla Badruddin, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

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

ITA 508/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Navunda Abdulla Badruddin Vs Pcit, Central O Thuwfeeq Manzil C.R. Building, Queen'S Road Maski Navunda, Kundapur Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 576224 Pan – Aevpa6893G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pcit) U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act), Bangalore In Appeal No. 263/Pr.Cit(C)/2001-02 Dated 28.03.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143[3] R.W.S. 153D Of The Act Dated 19/12/2019 & Direct

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 69C

indicating that the assessee is entitled to a particular extent of relief, but if it is with reference to relevant articles of the double taxation avoidance agreements and if it is not either a proper computation or not fully in consonance with the same and if it has resulted ... detrimental to the interest of the assessee, as it was always open to the assessee to justify the claim in terms of the double taxation avoidance agreements. In a situation of this nature, we are also of the opinion that it was not a case which warranted interference

M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Oil Products, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

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

ITA 489/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms.Padmavathy S.M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Vs Pcit, Central Oil Products C.R. Building D.No. 1-4(9), Manur Fisheries Queen'S Road Road, Kota, Post Kota Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 0576221 Pan – Aaefj1257G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocte Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 28.03.2022 Passed For Ay 2018-19 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Pcit) Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocteFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 269Section 269SSection 69C

again by adjusting the stock in the books of the appellant which would enhance the profit of the appellant and consequently resulting in double taxation of the same item, which is not as per the intent of the legislature and consequently the observations of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income

Etisalat Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 240/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92D

depends upon the fair and quick judicial dispensation in such cases. Had it been a case of substantial question of interpretation of provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaties (DTAA), interpretation of provisions of the Income Tax Act or Overriding Effect of the Treaties over the Domestic Legislations or the questions

Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Officer, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 708/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Vs. Ito, Flat B002, Renaissance Brindavan, Cpc, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru South, Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Ahwps 5221 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

credit for foreign taxes. Article 24(4)(a) is relevant in the present context. Same is extracted below: “4. In the case of India, double taxation shall be avoided as follows: (a) the amount of Australian tax paid under the laws of Australia and in accordance with the provisions

M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2243/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92C

working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and loans and advances to associated enterprise would amount to double taxation. Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Orange Business Services India Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 286 has observed that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Acropetal Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40

assessee. The payments made by the assessee to Datamatics Solutions Inc., USA need to be analysed from the applicability of article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with US, which states that the provisions of fees for technical service would be attracted if services rendered ‘make available’ technical knowledge

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Acropetal Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40

DCIT-9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Allied Offshore Services P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1520/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80G

will decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee by specifically addressing the issue that there is no double taxation qua the commission taken in advance by the assessee during the years under assessment and that whether the commission taken in advance is to be treated

DCIT - 9 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Allied Offshore Servies P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1519/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80G