“double taxation”

DCIT (It) -4 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

payment received for providing training services as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between Indian and Netherlands as per Article 12(5) thereon. Further, the ld. AO treated the payment received for providing

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. ACIT (International Tax) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

payment received for providing training services as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between Indian and Netherlands as per Article 12(5) thereon. Further, the ld. AO treated the payment received for providing

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6364/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, R. No. 642, 6Th Floor, ‘A’ Aidun Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 1St Dhobhi Talao, John Crasto Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lane, Mumbai-400 002 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aahps3906Q (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 247/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, बनाम/ Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. P. Rastogi, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Hiro Rai, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 14.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2018 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-9, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 2

maximum marginal rate, so taxing the net amount in the hands of the assessee is untenable as the same would be a double taxation. He further held that the entire amount of interest of Rs. 7.19 crores as reflected in Form 26S stands actually shown by the different persons

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

erred in law and on facts, in rejecting 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 @ 40% (plus surcharge and education cess) instead of rate applicable to a resident taxpayer ... section 44C of the Act does not apply to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of Article 25 - 'Non-Discrimination' of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between the Government of India and Government of Korea. 4. When this appeal came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

erred in law and on facts, in rejecting 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 @ 40% (plus surcharge and education cess) instead of rate applicable to a resident taxpayer ... 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

Ghanshyam Vashishta, Surat vs. ACIT CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different assessees are allowed in terms as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am

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 facsts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition ... same is made taxable in the hand of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain. Therefore, the same addition in the hands of the assessee becomes double taxation of the same income and is invalid. Lastly, he submitted that the conversion from protective addition to substantive by the Ld. CIT(A) clearly tantamount

DCIT (It) 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marubeni Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection appeal is allowed

This interest income was offered to tax at the rate of 10% in terms of the provisions of Article 11(2) of India Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [(1990) 182 ITR (Stat) 380- as amended from time to time; Indo Japanese tax treaty in short]. When this issue came ... complete agreement, has also been adopted in a large number of cases and including in the context of the India UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. These cases include Capgemini SA v. Dy. CIT (International Taxation) [2016] 72 taxmann.com 58/160 ITD 13 (Mum. - Trib.), Dy. DIT v. J.P. Morgan Securities Asia

ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Bsr and Co. LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

have permanent establishment in India. The CIT (Appeals) has found that such entities are eligible for the benefit of Article -15 of Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement dealing with independent personal services and hence, payments are not chargeable to tax in India so as to require deduction ... been made available to the assessee so as to consider it as falling within the purview of Article-12 of Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. It is also an established fact that such non-resident recipients do not have permanent establishment in India and, therefore, in the said background

ADIT(It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

income of the Firm is not liable to be tax in India and it took recourse to the provisions of the Indo-UK, Double Taxation Avoidable Agreement (DTAA). However, it is a fact that along with the return, the assessee also placed without prejudice an income and expenditure account with

M/S.Shilpi Flocking Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 15(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Shilpi Flocking Co. Pvt. Ltd., C/8, Janardhan Bhavan, B.K. Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai-400081. Pan: Aaacs8671C ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-15(3)(3), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Neha Thakur, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 26.04.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Disallowed Rs. 1,50,000/-(6,00,000-4,50,000) As Director’S Remuneration. The Income Tax Officer Has Considered Rs. 4,50,000 Instead Of Rs. 6,00,000 As Director’S Remuneration Paid. The Learned Cit (Appeals) -24 Mumbai Confirmed The Same By Passing The Order Under Section 250 Of The It Act 1961. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Income Tax Officer Erred In Disallowing Rs.5,61,210 & Rs. 1,38,917 On Account

Hence, income by way of interest on FD can only be taken in one year and not both years since there is double taxation and hence addition should be either in A. Y. 2014-15 or A.Y 2015-16 Kindly refer out letter dated 16.12.2016 written to AO where

ITO, (It)-2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S International Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy & Broking Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2823/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S International Ito(It)-2(2)(2), Reinsurance & R. No. 1725, 17Th Floor, Air Insurance Consultancy India Building, Nariman & Broking Services Pvt. Point, बिधम/ Ltd. Mumbai-400 021 Vs. 15Th Floor, B-Wing, Nirmal Building, 241/242, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaci2859J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Atul T. Suraiya, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2019 Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56

premium is paid by AFCI, the insured. If tax was to be deducted, it is by the insured after examining relevant provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance 8 I.T.A. No. 2823/Mum/2019 M/s International Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy & Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. Agreement and other statutory provisions. The allegation that they

Virendrakumar Vijayvargia, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Sampatkumar S. Dadhich, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Sonam Gems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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