“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

M/S. Invendis Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 986/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 90Section 91

arise in India), he has paid in any country with which there is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation, income-tax, by deduction or otherwise, under the law in force in that country, he shall be entitled to the deduction from the Indian ... after deduction of all relief due, but before deduction of any relief due in Page 4 of 18 the said country in respect of double taxation, divided by the whole amount of the income as assessed in the said country; (iv) the expression "income-tax" in relation to any country

M/S Irunway India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 229/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Irunway India Private Limited, Dcit, Vs. Regus Business Center, Office Circle – 3(1)(1), No.1015, Bengaluru. 10Th Floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurugram, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 003. Pan : Aabci 5613 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37Section 40

dispute that the nature of services is in the nature of technical services. He submitted that under Article 12(4)(b) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement Page 17 of 34 (DTAA) between India and USA, payment of any kind made to a person in consideration for rendering technical services

Accc 30, Mumbai vs. United Shippers Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3036/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir Income-Tax, Circle-30 R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0764C The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-30 United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 92Section 92CSection 92C(3)

erred in holding that unproved liabilities cannot be brought to tax in the current year as it will amount to double taxation as the assessee has offered these liabilities to tax in the F.Y. 2010-11.” 05. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company engaged

M/S Belgacom International Carrier Services Sa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) International Taxation, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2884/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

For Respondent: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

received by the Appellant from its customer in India is in the nature of 'royalty' within the meaning of Article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (to which the Appellant is entitled to) and accordingly taxable in India under the IT Act. 4. The lower authorities erred ... holding that the retrospective amendment to section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act would apply in interpreting the Article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Belgium. 7. Without prejudice, the lower authorities erred in holding that the tax determined in the assessment

ITO 5(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Malabar Hills Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3592/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 5(2)(3) V. M/S. Malabar Hill Club Limited Room No. 566, 5Th Floor B.G. Kher Marg, Malabar Hill Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacw3868M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Niraj D. Sheth & Shri Vishal Asrani Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D. Sheth and Shri Vishal AsraniFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 143(3)

delete the addition so made by h/in and to re- compute its total income accordingly. Without prejudice to the above.' 2:0 Re.: Double taxation of Rs 75,64,8751/- being fees received from life members and offered to tax y the Appellant.: 9 M/s. Malabar Hill Club Limited ... moto offered to tax by the Appellant in its return of income have not been reduced by the Assessing Officer and this amounts to double taxation of income to the extent of Ps. 75,64.874/- suo-moto offered to tax by the Appellant. 3. The Appellant had preferred an rectification

Dy CIT(International Taxation)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marubeni Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1046/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

interest from banks and others, which has been offered to tax at the rate of 10% in accordance with Article 11(2) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Japan. The Assessing Officer treated the interest receipt as 'Income from Other Sources' and taxed at 42.024% without specifying

Ansr Global Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 225/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.225/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Ansr Global Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Ground Floor, Block L1, Circle – 1(1)(1), Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bengaluru. Sez, Outer Ring Road, Nagwara, Bengaluru-560 045. Pan : Aaecn 7296 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

such cases. Had it been a case of substantial IT(TP)A No.225/Bang/2021 Page 17 of 23 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 like

M/S. Indecomm Global Services (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2800/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 40

same is not chargeable to tax in India as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the relevant articles of India Belgium Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DT AA), whichever is more beneficial. 4 ITA Nos.2799 & 2800/Bang/2017. M/s.Encora Innovation Labs India Pvt.Ltd. 3.2 The learned CIT(A) relying ... made is not chargeable to tax in India as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the relevant articles of India Belgium Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), whichever is more beneficial. 4. Non-deduction of withholding taxes on outsourced software services - INR 76,873 a) Online Purchase

M/S. Indecomm Global Services (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2799/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 40

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

income is not subjected to tax in India. With regard to country's with which India does not have any agreement for avoidance of double taxation, the Court observed that as per section 91 of the Act, the assessee would be eligible to avail tax credit. Thus, on a careful ... Apex Court in favour of the assessee by holding as under:- “By virtue of section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, once a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement applies, the provisions of the Act can only apply to the extent that they are more beneficial to the assessee

Xerox Business Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 361/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 144C(6)Section 92C

computation of income i.e. INR 21,97,70,402 which is actually the cumulative balance of Leave encashment at the year-end, leading to double taxation to the extent of INR 13,83,00,931 in the subject year. 26. The learned AO / DRP have erred in facts

Asst.CIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Xerox Business Services of India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 144C(6)Section 92C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai vs. Rihen Harshad Mehta, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4097/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle - 8(3) V. Shri Rihen Harsahad Mehta 1608/1609, Prasad Chambers 6Th Floor, Room No. 659 Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Affpm9223F (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Shri Ajay Chandra Assessee By : Shri Nitesh S. Joshi

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh S. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra

Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 69A

without appreciating the fact the addition was based on information received to Government of India from the Government of France under the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of All Cargo Logistics Ltd (ITA No.523 ... without appreciating the fact the addition was based on information received to Government of India from the Government of France under the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of All Cargo Logistics Ltd (ITA No.523

Sri. B.M. Farook vs. DCIT

In the result, the cross appeals by the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 945/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri V. Chandrashekar, Narendra Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel for the Dept

Section 292C

already confirmed by him in ground No.12 raised before him, he was of the opinion that taxing the same again would amount to double taxation and hence deleted the addition of Rs.6 lakhs. 15. Before us, the contention of the ld. DR is that this amount does not pertain

DCIT vs. Sri. B.M. Farooku

In the result, the cross appeals by the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1025/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri V. Chandrashekar, Narendra Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel for the Dept

Section 292C

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7992/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/w Ms. Akshita BhandariFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed additional foreign tax credited amounting to Rs.23,96,97,476, under Article 25(4) of the Indo–Cyprus Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). Article–25(4) of Indo–Cyprus reads as under:– "(4) That tax payable in a Contracting State mentioned in paragraph

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1650/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT–DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90Section 91

deduction as per section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. The State and local taxes being outside the scope of ambit of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (―DTAA‖) are ineligible for relief under section 90 of the Act. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. ITA No. 17/Mum./2011 ITA no.1650/Mum./2016 ... regarding grant of foreign tax credit as per the provisions of section 90(1)(a) of the Act read with provisions of the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA‟) for taxed paid overseas in relation to income eligible for deduction under section 10A/10AA of the Act. 57. The brief facts

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

learned TPO has already imputed notional interest income on these loans granted to such related parties during the year under consideration resulting in double taxation of the same income. 6. Disallowance of payments made to Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited, United Racing & Bloodstock Breeders and United Mohun Bagan Football Team

M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly

ITA 2870/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 9Th Floor Prestige Of Income-Tax Thirulakshmi Vs. Circle-3(1)(1) No.11 M.G. Road Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 001 Pan No : Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Respondent By : D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 92C

loan they are submitted that the amount disallowed has already been offered to tax and therefore disallowance of the excess provision amounts to double taxation during the year under consideration. On the contrary, the Ld.Sr.DR relied on orders passed by authorities below. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides

Rashmi Ameya Developers Housing & Estate Realtors P. Ltd., Palghar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Thane

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1990/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rashmi Ameya Developers Acit, Central Circle-3, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road No. Housing & Estate Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. D Ii, 01 02, Akanksha Commercial 16Z, Wagale Industrial Estate, Complex, Opp. Sajavat Complex, Thane-400 604. Achole Road, Nallasopara, Dist. Palghar-401 203. Pan No. Aaecr 8508 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153C

assessee. The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee requested before the Ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition in view of the double taxation and in support of his claim he filed following documents: (i) Ledger extract of M/s Raj Enterprises in the books of accounts of the assessee, where