← 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

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1097/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbau

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1096/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1095/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1094/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1093/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1092/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1091/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1090/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1089/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1088/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1067/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 9(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 7396/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 40

accordance with law and also in the light of additional evidences furnished by the assessee. The ld. AO should ensure that there is no double taxation in this regard. If a particular sum has been already reversed by the assessee in the subsequent assessment year then, disallowing the same ... year under consideration would result in double taxation. This aspect has to be looked into by the ld. AO while dealing with this issue in the set aside proceedings. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 6.1 – 6.4 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited

M/S.Ims, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 4016/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Ims V. Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) Level One, Grand Bella Vista 19Th Floor, Air India Building S.V. Road, Bandra (W) Nariman Point Mumbai - 400050 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafi0407M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Dharmveer Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharmveer Singh
Section 133A

action of the AO of making an addition of the said amount in the relevant year is incorrect since it will amount to double taxation considering that the amount of the said unaccounted sales have been included in the year relevant to AY 2016-17. 5.3 It was further submitted

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5677/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

taxable as fee for technical services (FTS) u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act and also under Article 12 of the Indo- Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). In respect of payments received by the assessee on account of computer reservation systems, the ld. AO held that the same would ... right to use of any intellectual property. It has to be given the meaning as per the Income tax Act and the applicable double taxation avoidance agreement. In our view each and every business receipt cannot be treated as royalty receipt. 24. Where further noted that ld. CIT-(A) while

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

should give consequential relief in the year in which the revenue deferred was offered to tax to ensure that there is no double taxation. With these observations, ground 29 to 35 are dismissed. 42. The grievance projected by the Assessee in ground No.36 to 38 is that the credit

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

should give consequential relief in the year in which the revenue deferred was offered to tax to ensure that there is no double taxation. With these observations, ground 29 to 35 are dismissed. 42. The grievance projected by the Assessee in ground No.36 to 38 is that the credit

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

should give consequential relief in the year in which the revenue deferred was offered to tax to ensure that there is no double taxation. With these observations, ground 29 to 35 are dismissed. 42. The grievance projected by the Assessee in ground No.36 to 38 is that the credit

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri
Section 14ASection 35

appellant u/s hundred and 15 O of the income tax act, 1961 having regard to the beneficial rate as per the applicable double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA) for dividends paid to non- resident shareholders, should be directed to be refunded to the appellant. Ground number 7 deduction in respect ... company. The same was offered for taxation in the return of income. However, later on, assessee contended that as per article 13 of The Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [DTAA] royalty income is not liable to tax in India and therefore the same needs to be reduced from the total taxable

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

circumstances appears to be only the assessee-firm. The Apex Court has held in the case of Jammaprasad Kanhaiyalal (supra) that there is no double taxation in taxing the person to whom the income actually belonged with the persons who falsely declared them in their returns filed under the Voluntary

M/S. Jeans Knit Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80J

return was filed by the assessee under section 139 (5) of the Act claiming the relief under Section 90 of the Act read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Only a letter claiming the said relief was filed before assessment and the same cannot be taken into consideration. 72. Section ... letter is to bring to notice of the assessing authority the statutory provisions as well as the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement under which the assessee is entitled to claim tax benefit, as the said benefit of tax was not claimed in the return filed under Section