← 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

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Tax-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9711/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 154Section 40Section 40a

have held that the Appellant has no income chargeable to tax in India either under the Act or under the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the United Kingdom ("DTAA"). 3. That the Assessing Officer and the DRP ought to have held that no income ... Assessing Officer and the DRP have erred in disallowing the deduction of these expenses by incorrect application of Article 7 of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 7.3.3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer and the DRP have

Aradhana S Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 14 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, assesses appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7748/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 68

When the entire business receipts is being added, how can the cash deposits in bank be also added again as it will result in double taxation not permissible under the Act. Furthermore, assesse has also submitted additional evidences, which the ld.CIT(A) has examined and rejected and thereafter also held

Kennametal Inc, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the appeal for AY 2012-13

ITA 35/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A No.35/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2017-18 M/S. Kennametal Inc., Vs. Acit (International Taxation), C/O. Kennametal India, Circle – 1(2), 8/9Th Mile, Tumkur Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 073. Pan: Aacck 6397 B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

fees for included services within the meaning of article 12(4)(a) r.w.s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). IT(IT)A No.35/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 9 3. The factual circumstances under which the aforesaid addition was made

Shel Mrpl Aviation Fules and Services Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3216/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

ought to have appreciated that the Page 6 of 22 payments were not taxable in India by virtue of the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United Kingdom. 9.5 The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the evidences furnished by the Appellant during the course

M/S. Talisma Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for both the years under consideration filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 458/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 902/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, “Phoenix”- The Deputy Magnificia, Vijanapura, Commissioner Of Mahadevapura Ward, Income Tax, Old Madras Road, Circle 7 (1)(1), Dooravaninagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 458/Bang/2017 (By Assessee) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 27.01.2016 For A.Y. 2011-12 & 26.12.2016 For A.Y. 2012-13 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: At The Outset, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Main Issue In These Two Appeals Is Regarding The Characterisation Carried Out By The Ld.Tpo Of The Assessee’S Business.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

458/Bang/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 which deserves to be allowed. It is also submitted that disallowance of the provisions would amount to double taxation. In the interest of justice, we direct the Ld.AO to verify the details filed by the assessee and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Accordingly

M/S Talisma Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for both the years under consideration filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 902/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 902/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, “Phoenix”- The Deputy Magnificia, Vijanapura, Commissioner Of Mahadevapura Ward, Income Tax, Old Madras Road, Circle 7 (1)(1), Dooravaninagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 458/Bang/2017 (By Assessee) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 27.01.2016 For A.Y. 2011-12 & 26.12.2016 For A.Y. 2012-13 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: At The Outset, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Main Issue In These Two Appeals Is Regarding The Characterisation Carried Out By The Ld.Tpo Of The Assessee’S Business.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

458/Bang/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 which deserves to be allowed. It is also submitted that disallowance of the provisions would amount to double taxation. In the interest of justice, we direct the Ld.AO to verify the details filed by the assessee and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Accordingly

M/S Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3350/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234B

licensing of software by the Appellant to be in the nature of 'royalty' as defined under the provisions of the Act read with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into between India and United Kingdom ('DTAA'). 2 The learned AO/DRP have erred in law and fact, in allocating a portion

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Int. Taxn., New Delhi vs. Alcatel Lucent International, France

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

customers in India does not amount to royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act and under Article 13 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and France? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was right in ignoring ... dispute arising for consideration is, whether the embedded software supplied along with the hardware is taxable either under the provisions of India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) or under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee

DCIT Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Alcatel Lucent International, France

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 713/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

customers in India does not amount to royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act and under Article 13 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and France? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was right in ignoring ... dispute arising for consideration is, whether the embedded software supplied along with the hardware is taxable either under the provisions of India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) or under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee

Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 5462/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: This Tribunal & Earlier Vide Order Dated 25.02.2014, This Tribunal Had Restored The Matter For De Novo Adjudication To The File Of Assessing

Section 143(3)Section 254

method, 98.4605% of this revenue amounting to Rs. 43,67,94,996/- has already been taxed upto AY 2007-08. Hence, to set off double taxation, in compliance to the directions of the Hon’ble ITAT, the assessee’s income is reduced by the amount ... part of this revenue, which amounts of Rs. 43,67,94,996/-, has already been taxed upto A.Y. 2007-08. Therefore, to set off double taxation, he reduced this amount from the total income for the year under consideration. Thus, the net revenue

Cj Darcl Logistics Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6123/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Cj Darcl Logistics Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.55P, Sec-44, Gurgaon, Cpc-Tds, Haryana-122003. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaacd2086J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.02.2022

Section 206A

resident (i.e. Anbis Development) without appreciating that the recipient of the such sum is entitled to be governed by the beneficial provisions of double taxation avoidance agreement entered into between India and Bangladesh. That the above grounds of appeal ore mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. That

DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3413/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri C.N. Prasadasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)(b)Section 9

services. The assessee is a tax resident of United States of America (USA) and is entitled to be governed by the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA (“India-USA DTAA”) being more beneficial to the assessee. The assessee filed its return of income

M/S. Meridian Gems, Surat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 451/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchliyaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 251(2)

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 of Rs. 1,00.16.345/- (being

Niraj Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 376/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
Section 142(1)

Niraj Kumar & Smt. Sujata Sharma, Ghaziabad viii Hence, we urge that this cash amount should not be included in assessee's income to avoid double taxation of the same income in two hands. 2.4 The assessees also filed the charts before the Assessing officer showing the break- up of additional ... already been included in the additional income surrendered to the tune of 2,16,25,000/-. It was submitted that therefore, double taxation of the same income in the hands of the two assessees deserved to be deleted. 5.0 Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR placedreliance on the orders

M/S. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 749/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2008-09
Section 10Section 254(2)Section 40

whereas lease rent payments after 01/04/2007 have been claimed as exempt under the provisions of agreement for avoidance of double taxation (DTAA) between India and Ireland. 6. We also note that Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Malladi Project Management Private Limited

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

with section 139(5) Page 6 of 33 IT(TP)A Nos. 445 & 608/Bang/2016 of the Act and Article 23(2) of India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 6. The details of Income offered under Original returns filed by German PE, Original Tax Demand, Assessed Income and Revised tax demand ... resident of Germany. Therefore, the Appellant submits that dividend received by Robert Bosch GmbH is subject to Article 10 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany. For ready reference, the Appellant extracts below the relevant provisions of Article 10 of DTAA between India and Germany: 1. Dividends

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

with section 139(5) Page 6 of 33 IT(TP)A Nos. 445 & 608/Bang/2016 of the Act and Article 23(2) of India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 6. The details of Income offered under Original returns filed by German PE, Original Tax Demand, Assessed Income and Revised tax demand ... resident of Germany. Therefore, the Appellant submits that dividend received by Robert Bosch GmbH is subject to Article 10 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany. For ready reference, the Appellant extracts below the relevant provisions of Article 10 of DTAA between India and Germany: 1. Dividends

M/S Nature Bio Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4012/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Move adjournment application
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

actual realization basis, and therefore, taxing the same account on accrual basis in the Assessment Year 2010-11 in question separately would tantamount to double taxation which is not justified. It was contended that the whole exercise is revenue neutral. Ld. counsel in the same vain submitted that the issue

Hapag-Lloyd Ag, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 972/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Hapag-Lloyd Ag The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O Hapag-Lloyd India Pvt. Income-Tax (International Ltd. Taxation), Range -2(2)(2), Room No. 1606, 16 Th Floor, 403 & 404, Satellite Gazebo, Vs. A Wing, 4Th Floor, Guru Air India Building, Nariman Hargoindji Marg, Andheri Point, Mumbai-400 021 (East), Mumbai-400 093 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aacfe7262L Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, Advocates, Revenue By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR
Section 143Section 234Section 270Section 270ASection 44BSection 90(2)

owned/chartered/pooled on slot arrangement basis. The assessee has claimed that its income is not chargeable to tax in India as per the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [ DTAA] between India and Germany. 04. It filed original return of income on 30.11.2016, declaring a income ... decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balaji Shipping UK Ltd (supra). He also took us through the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and federal republic of Germany and also between India and UK. He submitted that in assessee’s own case for assessment year

Breach Candy Hospital Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 807/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebreach Candy Hospital Vs. Cit (Exemptions) Trust, Room, Mp/ 617, 6Th 60, Bhulabhai Desai Floor, Piramal Road, Mumbai – Chambers, Lalbaug, 400026. Parel, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0214D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Ketan Ved. Ar Respondent By : Shri. Mahesh Akhade. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 19.03.2021.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Ketan Ved. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Mahesh Akhade. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 263

officer in the assessment order. Hence, if differential amount of Rs.98,95,131 is again added to the total income, it will lead to double taxation of the same amount and gross injustice to the assessee. 4. In view of the above, the assessee submits that the proposed addition