“double taxation”

Edelweiss Financail Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

said provision has been reversed by the assessee voluntarily in the subsequent year and duly offered to tax and hence, there cannot be any double taxation. The ld. DR vehemently argued that correct income should be taxed in the correct assessment year. 5.4. At the outset, there is no dispute ... profit and loss account of the assessee and hence taxing the very same provision for expenses in this year would result in double taxation. This practice has been consistently followed by the assessee over the years which has been accepted by the Revenue. It is also a fact that assessee

Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

said provision has been reversed by the assessee voluntarily in the subsequent year and duly offered to tax and hence, there cannot be any double taxation. The ld. DR vehemently argued that correct income should be taxed in the correct assessment year. 5.4. At the outset, there is no dispute ... profit and loss account of the assessee and hence taxing the very same provision for expenses in this year would result in double taxation. This practice has been consistently followed by the assessee over the years which has been accepted by the Revenue. It is also a fact that assessee

Edelweiss Finanacial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

said provision has been reversed by the assessee voluntarily in the subsequent year and duly offered to tax and hence, there cannot be any double taxation. The ld. DR vehemently argued that correct income should be taxed in the correct assessment year. 5.4. At the outset, there is no dispute ... profit and loss account of the assessee and hence taxing the very same provision for expenses in this year would result in double taxation. This practice has been consistently followed by the assessee over the years which has been accepted by the Revenue. It is also a fact that assessee

Atharv Business Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

hands of the Appellant Company needs to be deleted, so that there is no double taxation of the same income. 22.4 However, in case the addition made in the hands of Shri Parveen Kumar Jain of the unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act is deleted ... challenged the deletion of protective addition made by the AO by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that there can be no double taxation of the same income. Even otherwise from the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) no ground challenging the same has arisen in favour

Shri Amit Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT, - 33(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 3331 & 3332/Mum/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Amit Mangilal Jain Vs. Acit – 33(1) 2Nd Floor, Arkade House, 103, 1St Floor, Atmaram Sawnt Marg, Eastern House, Kandivali (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400101. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabpj0925G Appellant .. Respondent

department in the assessments of the said AOPs. Therefore, the same amount cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee, which amounts to double taxation. Further, the AO brushed aside the explanation given by the assessee without bringing any other corroborative document on record and without finding fault with

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

same, but directed the AO to exclude the service charges, which have been offered to tax on “receipt basis” in order to avoid double taxation of same income. 32. We heard the parties on this issue. The ld A.R submitted that the total income declared by the assessee for this

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleorient Overseas Container Line Limited V. Dcit(It)-3(2)(2) C/O. Oocl (India) Private Limited 16Th Floor Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor Air India Building Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills Nariman Point Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaaco5679E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

international traffic. Its revenue consists of freight income and ancillary’s charges such as terminal handling charges, demurrage charges etc., In absence of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with Hong Kong, Assessee has offered to tax the entire income (Freight Income and ancillary income) under presumptive scheme of taxation

M/S Stratergic Capital Corporation Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

fair and we direct the ld. AO to reduce the sum of Rs 9,54,395/- while computing business income as it would avoid double taxation. In our considered opinion, this would meet the ends of 3 M/s. Strategic Capital Corporation Pvt. Ltd., justice. Accordingly, the first part of Ground

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleinmarsat Global Limited V. Dcit (It) – 2(2)(1) Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400021 Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarati Sathe Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

under the laws of the United Kingdom (UK). Inmarsat is a tax resident of UK 3 Inmarsat Global Limited for the purpose of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UK ('India-UK Tax Treaty'). 1. In connection with the above, it is submitted that Inmarsat is engaged ... Tata Communications Limited (TCL) (earlier known as Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL)] to be 'Royalty as defined under Article 13(3)(a) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United Kingdom ('India UK Tax Treaty'); Ground number 3 erred in not following the decision of the jurisdictional Mumbai

DCIT Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai vs. Raj Hiten Parikh, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1224 & 1226/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07 & 2007-08) Raj Hiten Parikh Dcit Cen. Cir-1(2), R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Annex 42C, Laxmi Nivas, 87, बिधम/ Building, Pratistha Bhavan, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 006

processing and export of diamonds. In this case, specific information (hereinafter called as Base Note) was received from the French Government, under DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) that the present assessee was a beneficial owner of undisclosed overseas bank accounts in the names of the companies Sulay Trading

ACIT-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

bondholders would have accordingly offered the same to income in their respective returns, disallowance of the said interest would result in double taxation of same income. The A.O was of the view that perpetual bonds was equity and they have equity like features i.e (a) perpetual in nature; (b) high ... respective returns, ITA Nos. 3215 & 3864/Mum/2019 13 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. The ACIT-2(3)(2) disallowance of the said interest would result in double taxation of the same income. 9.3.1 In this case, the appellant is a banking company and there is no dispute to the fact that

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Asst. CIT Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

bondholders would have accordingly offered the same to income in their respective returns, disallowance of the said interest would result in double taxation of same income. The A.O was of the view that perpetual bonds was equity and they have equity like features i.e (a) perpetual in nature; (b) high ... respective returns, ITA Nos. 3215 & 3864/Mum/2019 13 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. The ACIT-2(3)(2) disallowance of the said interest would result in double taxation of the same income. 9.3.1 In this case, the appellant is a banking company and there is no dispute to the fact that