← 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

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

ITA 1518/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

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

M/S Conduent Business Services India LLP, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground No.1 to 3 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3346/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 920

Appellant had filed an application under the provisions of Article 25 Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP')I of the India-United States ('US') Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('India- US tax treaty') in respect of the transfer pricing adjustments made by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO')/AO under 2 segments

DCIT-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Karvat Cover More Assist Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250Section 40

services and making technical knowledge available at the same time and therefore falls within the provisions of Article 12(3)(g) of India Australia Double Taxation Avoidance KARVAT COVER MORE ASSIST PVT. LTD. ITA no.4288/Mum./2019 Agreement („DTAA’). Accordingly, the AO came to the conclusion that the assessee should have

DCIT - 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Phonographic Performance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2976/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 33

years (Later or earlier) In which the income accrued as per its Method of Accounting and Invoicing. In all such cases, there would be double taxation of the same income, in that, once it would ' be taxed based on the stand taken by the learned AO and it would

Manhattan Associates (India) Development Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 221/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 221/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Manhattan Associates (India) Development Centre Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 5Th & 6Th Floor, Commissioner Of B1 Block, Income Tax, Brigade Tech Gardens, Circle 4(1)(1), Brookefields, Bangalore. Vs. Kundanahalli, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aadcm0727A Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana
Section 28

warranted. It is submitted that since the item has already suffered tax pursuant to the APA, a separate addition would result in double taxation, which is unsustainable. In view of the above, the other contentions are not argued at the present stage and the Appellant reserves liberty to argue ... warranted, which is already subject to tax pursuant to APA and no further addition is necessary, otherwise it amounts to double taxation. Accordingly, we allow this ground taken by the assessee.” Page 6 of 6 IT(TP)A No. 221/Bang/2021 7. In the present facts of the case, the situation

ADIT (It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nagase & Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2312/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

erred in holding that the Appellant's Liaison office constitutes its Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan. 2.Without prejudice to ground I above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the principle that only the profits attributable ... appeal, is pertaining to consideration of liaison office as Permanent Establishment („PE‟) of the assessee in India under Article 5 of India and Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA‟). 5. The facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee before

M/S. Nagase & Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (I.T) - RG.-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1805/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

erred in holding that the Appellant's Liaison office constitutes its Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan. 2.Without prejudice to ground I above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the principle that only the profits attributable ... appeal, is pertaining to consideration of liaison office as Permanent Establishment („PE‟) of the assessee in India under Article 5 of India and Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA‟). 5. The facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee before

M/S. Nagase & Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (I.T) - RG.-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1803/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

erred in holding that the Appellant's Liaison office constitutes its Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan. 2.Without prejudice to ground I above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the principle that only the profits attributable ... appeal, is pertaining to consideration of liaison office as Permanent Establishment („PE‟) of the assessee in India under Article 5 of India and Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA‟). 5. The facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee before

The ADIT(It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/.S Nagase & Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 343/MUM/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

erred in holding that the Appellant's Liaison office constitutes its Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan. 2.Without prejudice to ground I above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the principle that only the profits attributable ... appeal, is pertaining to consideration of liaison office as Permanent Establishment („PE‟) of the assessee in India under Article 5 of India and Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA‟). 5. The facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee before

M/S. Nagase & Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT(A) Xxxiii, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/MUM/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

erred in holding that the Appellant's Liaison office constitutes its Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan. 2.Without prejudice to ground I above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the principle that only the profits attributable ... appeal, is pertaining to consideration of liaison office as Permanent Establishment („PE‟) of the assessee in India under Article 5 of India and Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA‟). 5. The facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee before

DCIT Central Circle(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 439/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Cc-2(1) Vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Old Cgo Bldg, 804, Mehta, 8Th Floor, Mk Road, 602-603, Prasad Mumbai – 400020. Chambers,Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aaopm3805D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 87/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita 439/Mum/2022) (A.Y: 2006-07) Shri Kumar Rasikal Vs. Dcit, Cc-2(1) Mehta, Old Cgo Bldg, 804, 8Th 602-603, Prasad Floor, Mk Road, Chambers,Operahouse, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai - 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aaopm3805D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri .Harsh Kapadia.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Tejinder Pal Singh.DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the scrutiny assessment and has dealt elaborately on the provisions, facts and the concept of double taxation at page 38 to 49 of the order and ITA No. 439/Mum/2022 & CO No. 87/Mum/2022 Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai. granted partial relief and partly ... will be not fair to held the assessee for the same addition made in A.Y. 2007-08 resulting in double taxation. Moreover, for any ITA No. 439/Mum/2022 & CO No. 87/Mum/2022 Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai. additional addition over and above what is reflected in the piece of information received

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 680/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 90

Rs.2,01,024/- and also paid tax on it at Rs.63,342/- and levying of additional tax of Rs.28,431/- is amounting to double taxation. In our opinion, the plea of the assessee is justified. The assessee has filed the copy of Form No.67 before Ld. CIT(A). He ought ... 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

Dilip Sayarchand Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 432/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.432/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Dilip Sayarchand Mehta बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) C/O Marudhar Realties Co. Mumbai. Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 906, C Wing, One Bkc, C-66, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm3965A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. M. Bandi Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2022 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Ground Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”), The Same Is Kept Open.

For Appellant: Shri S. M. BandiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 148

action of the AO to again tax commission of 0.70% of Rs.75.55 crores in the hands of the assessee would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. 8. Having perused the documents placed before us, we find that the Revenue has indeed assessed commission income @ 0.7% of the entries ... challenged the orders passed by the revenue in appeal. In order to adjudicate the merits of the contention of Ld AR regarding double-taxation, this information is vital. So, we accordingly set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.989/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Electronic City, Hosur Road, Tax, Bengaluru – 560 100. International Taxation, Pan : Aaccp 4478 N Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2017 Of Cit(A) - 12, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Bpo Services. The Assessee Made Payment Of 2100 Us$ To A Non- Resident Viz., Stakeholder Centered Coaching (International Ltd.,)

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 248Section 5Section 9(1)(vii)

resident of Hongkong. It is body corporate registered in Hongkong. It is undisputed that there was no Treaty for avoidance of Double Taxation (DTAA) between India and Hongkong during the relevant period i.e., period relevant to Assessment Year 2015-16. The nature of payment made by the assessee ... considering the training fee as a consideration for rendering consultancy or technical services within the meaning of article 12(4)(b) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Portugal. On the facts since the Assessing Officer had himself. in the assessment order, accepted that the assessee

Mfe Formwork Technology Sdn Bhd, Mumbai vs. The CIT (Intl Tax), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 890/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

resident of, Malaysia, and there is no dispute on the point that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [Indo-Malaysian tax treaty, in short]. The assessee group has a wholly owned subsidiary in India, by the name of MFE Formwork Technology ... India') having its registered office at Mumbai, Andheri. The assessee is a tax resident of Malaysia in terms of Article 4 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA') entered into between India and Malaysia. The Assessee Company had executed a Marketing Service Agreement ('MSA') with MFE-India

Mergermarket Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT(It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicate above

ITA 6602/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 201

holding the receipts from subscription fees as income by way of royalty under the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as well as the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UK (Tax Treaty'). 1.3 The Appellant prays that the subscription fees received by the Appellant be held

Arm Embedded Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 235/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: 2.1 Rejecting the value of international transaction of provision of SWD and proFor Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92D

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

Dassault Systems Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. The ACIT (Intl Tax) -2(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 431/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

nature of royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") between India and USA 2.3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and DRP have erred ... India un view of the provision of section 9(1)(iv) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and U.S.A. In view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that the case of the assessee is fully covered

Bank of America N.A, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed

ITA 3343/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bank Of America National Commissioner Of Income Tax Association, (International Taxation), Range-1, Ground Floor, A Wing, One Vs. 3Rd Floor, Room No. 9, Mittal Court Bkc, G Block, Bandra Kurla ‘B’ Wing, Nariman Point, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacb 1537 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Vasanti Patel Revenue By : Mr. Sunil K. Jha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil K. Jha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 9(1)(v)

under to its head office and overseas branches as chargeable to tax under Article 11(2)(a) and Article 14(2) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Article 11(2)(a) and Article 14(2) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Article 11(2)(a) and Article 14(2) of the Double

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2889/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR)
Section 201(1)Section 40Section 80J

that that the payments made by the Appellant towards purchase of software is not covered within the meaning of 'royalty'! 'royalties' under the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") and hence, the Appellant was not under the obligation to withhold taxes. 13. The learned CIT(A) has erred