← 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

Vandana Jain, Sonipat vs. PCIT(Central)-1, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2342/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 To 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20 बनाम Vandana Jain Pcit (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, India. Pan No.Aampj6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 68

bogus. (ii) That the Ld. PCIT has erred ignoring the fact that the assessee having declared the bogus purchases also, enhancement will lead to double taxation of the same income. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT has erred both on facts

Vandana Jain, Sonipat vs. PCIT(Central)-1, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2341/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 To 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20 बनाम Vandana Jain Pcit (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, India. Pan No.Aampj6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 68

bogus. (ii) That the Ld. PCIT has erred ignoring the fact that the assessee having declared the bogus purchases also, enhancement will lead to double taxation of the same income. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT has erred both on facts

Lm Wind Power As, Denmark vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

Blades India Private Limited ("LM India") constitutes Fixed Place Permanent Establishment ("PE") of the Assessee in India under Article 5 of the India-Denmark Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("Tax Treaty"). 3.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in arriving at the aforesaid findings by not considering ... functions the second part of article 5(1) is not attracted.” (emphasis supplied) 18. He further submitted that Phillip Baker in his Commentary on Double Taxation Conventions and International Tax Law (3rd Edition) has also stated that the nature of the fixed place of business is very much that

Gold Spice Impex, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-47(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2244/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. Gold Spice Impex, Vs. Ito, Ward 47 (2), 1879, Kucha Chelian, Khari Boali, Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Aapfg0688P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.1,15,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 & Taxing The Same U/S 115Bbe & That Too By Recording Incorrect Facts & Findings & Without Following The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 234BSection 68

Vishal Exports Overseas Limited (Gujarat High Court) Tax Appeal No. 2471 of 2009 Thus, impugned additions will only result in double taxation which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in para 4.3 at page 9 of the appeal order that appellant

Pareshbhai Natvarlal Shah, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Navsari

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

ITA 1007/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1007/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Pareshbhai Natvarlal Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, बनाम/ 6-B, Sainath Society, Moroli Navsari-396 445 Vs. Bazar, Navsari-396 436 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adfps 0044 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Patel, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68Section 69A

realization and such income is accepted by the AO, addition of the same amount once again u/s 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of same income. The Mumbai Tribunal in case of R.S. Diamond India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITA No.1007/Srt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Pareshbhai N Shah ACIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Ramasamy Rajasehar, Perambalur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3336/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 69

appellant while simultaneously assessing them in the hands of the respective entities in different assessment years other than 2014-185 tantamount to double taxation” without taking cognizance of the facts of the case where this observation is not factually correct vis-à-vis the unexplained investment or the entities ... appellant while simultaneously assessing them in the hands of the respective entities in different assessment years other than AY 2014-15 tantamount to double taxation. In this backdrop the protective addition made is devoid of merits. Accordingly, all the grounds raised upon the core issue of addition made is treated

Daiwa Capital Markets India Private Limited, Lower Parel vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 5338/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandaiwa Capital Markets India Acit Circle 4(1)(1), Private Limited Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Office No. N10 & N11, 9Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dextrus-Peninsula Tower, Peninsula Mumbai-400 020 Corporate Park, G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 013 Pan: Aaccd7178B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Shivali Mhatre, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

well as Ld. CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice and legal settled precedents and shall amount to double taxation of the assessee which is not permissible in law. Thirdly, it is in consonance of Article 265 of the Constitution of India which mandates that „no tax shall

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, whether as fixed place

ITA 4092/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

essential and revenue-generating activities of the assessee are carried on. He further evaluates the matter under Article 5 of the India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and examines whether a Service Permanent Establishment is constituted. For this purpose, he refers to Article 5 paragraph 6 which deems a permanent

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have

ITA 3178/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

essential and revenue-generating activities of the assessee are carried on. He further evaluates the matter under Article 5 of the India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and examines whether a Service Permanent Establishment is constituted. For this purpose, he refers to Article 5 paragraph 6 which deems a permanent

Aroma Chemicals, Moradabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Moradabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2465/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

appellant was into non-genuine stock transactions. The appellant has not proved with documents as to how the addition made by the AO was double taxation. In view of these facts, the grounds of appeal No. 1 and 4 are dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee

Manideep Mago, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 27, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1419/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)

illegal and should be deleted. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a clear case of double addition and double taxation of the same credits twice and the same is illegal and not permissible under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the additions

Vision & Vision Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. Acut/ DCIT Circle 1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.183/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vision & Vision Pvt. Ltd.…….……………............................……….……Appellant Block No.2, Ambika Tower, Main Road Shastri Nagar, Jamshedpur – 831005. [Pan: Aabcv5072B] Vs. Acit/Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur ..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit), Ranchi, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 31.03.2025 For A.Y. 2018–19. The Assessee Challenges The Legality & Validity Of The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Pcit & The Consequent Revision Of The Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Dated 27.03.2023. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018–19 Declaring Total Income Of ₹11,95,030. The Return Was Initially Processed U/S 143(1). Later, Based On Information Shared By The Ddit (Investigation), Kolkata, It Was Alleged That The Assessee Had Received An Accommodation Entry Of ₹1,18,61,425 From M/S Kuldeepak Enterprises During The Year. On This Basis, The Ao Reopened The

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del)). The alleged issue pertains to earlier year therefore any addition in A.Y. 2018–19 would lead to double taxation, rendering the revision order I.T.A. No.183/Ran/2025 Vision & Vision Pvt. Ltd revenue-neutral and therefore not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Reliance ... pertains to assessment year 2017–18 and the profits were already offered to tax any proposed addition in A.Y. 2018–19 would result in double taxation. Therefore, the order cannot be considered prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue a mandatory condition for invoking section 263. The reassessment was initiated

Sampath Reddy Vem, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1230/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1229 & 1230/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sampath Reddy Vem Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Adfpv3598L Warangal (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Theses Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sampath Reddy Vem (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23.05.2025 & 24.05.2025 Respectively For The A.Y 2014-15. As Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee Therefore, For The Purpose Of Convenience & Brevity, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

other income of Rs. 2,34,028/- over and above the estimated profit without any justification or reconciliation with disclosed income, thereby resulting in double taxation. 5. The Learned. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the appellant had offered income from contract business under Section 44AD at a rate

Sampath Reddy Vem, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward - 1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1229/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1229 & 1230/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sampath Reddy Vem Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Adfpv3598L Warangal (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Theses Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sampath Reddy Vem (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23.05.2025 & 24.05.2025 Respectively For The A.Y 2014-15. As Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee Therefore, For The Purpose Of Convenience & Brevity, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

other income of Rs. 2,34,028/- over and above the estimated profit without any justification or reconciliation with disclosed income, thereby resulting in double taxation. 5. The Learned. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the appellant had offered income from contract business under Section 44AD at a rate

Inteva Products Netherlands B.V., Netherlands vs. ACIT It Circle 2(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1344/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Inteva Products Netherlands B.V. Vs. Acit, It Circle 2(1)(1), Siriusdreef 17, 2132, Wt, Hoofddorp, Delhi. Netherlands. (Pan :Aadci5208G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kshitij Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Order : 19.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(1)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2022-23Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground 1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle International Tax - 2(1)(1), Delhi ('Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Kshitij Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

business support services of INR 8,28,34,750 as fees for technical services ('FTS) as per Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) without appreciating that the services are managerial in nature and hence do not fall within the definition of FTS. The Appellant prays

Sony India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5926/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 115Section 237

memorandum and background of the case an incorrect view has been framed ITA No.5926/Del/2024 by the Hon'ble Special Bench that the provisions of double taxation avoidance agreement does not get triggered when a domestic company pays DDT u/s 115-0 of the Act. 2. On the facts ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by rejecting the claim of applicability of beneficial provision of India-Slovenia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement through the use of Most Favored Nation clause of India-Netherland tax treaty without appreciating the fact that various judicial forums have

Sony India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5924/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 115Section 237

memorandum and background of the case an incorrect view has been framed ITA No.5926/Del/2024 by the Hon'ble Special Bench that the provisions of double taxation avoidance agreement does not get triggered when a domestic company pays DDT u/s 115-0 of the Act. 2. On the facts ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by rejecting the claim of applicability of beneficial provision of India-Slovenia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement through the use of Most Favored Nation clause of India-Netherland tax treaty without appreciating the fact that various judicial forums have

Sureshkumar Manchandbhai Shah, Palanpur vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Palanpur

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

ITA 1336/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 694Section 69A

bank account were accepted in as much as the books were not rejected and the reported sales were brought to tax, it amounted to double taxation so that the impugned addition made by AO is highly excessive and calls for reduction. It is therefore prayed that the addition

Rockwell Automation India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-19(1), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3861/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalrockwell Automation India Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Registered Address: 131, Vs. Delhi. Functional Industrial Are, Patparganj, Delhi-110092 Communication Address: 131, Functional Industrial Area, Patparganj, New Delhi. Pan-Aaccr3791A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain, Ar Department By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C (13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.07.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Ae That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing / Assembling Of Automation & Industrial Control Products / Systems. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & A Reference Was Made To The Tpo Due With Transactions With Ae’S. The Return Of Income Was Filed On Rockwell Automation India Private Limited Vs. Dcit 15.02.2021 Declaring Total Income At Rs.97,08,46,360/-. The Tpo Vide Its Order Dated 28.07.2023 Passed U/S 92Ca(3) Of The Act Has Proposed Adjustments Totaling To Rs. 26,12,44,668/-. Thereafter, The Ao Has Passed The Draft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) Of The Act Dated 27.09.2023 Wherein The Ao Has Proposed The Additions Towards The Tp Adjustment As Per Tpo’S Order & Proposed To Assess The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.19,88,57,458/- & Further Proposed To Disallow Relief Claimed U/S 90/90A At Rs.1,04,60,287/-. Against The Draft Assessment Order, The Assessee Filed Objections Before The Drp.

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)Section 90Section 90ASection 92C

this amount of adjustment is added as has been made in the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act it would be double taxation. After considering the arguments, we direct the AO to verify the contention of the assessee and if the same is found correct no further

Sempertrans India Private Limited, Roha vs. Income-Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 1778/PUN/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1778/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain andFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 37(1)Section 92CSection 92D

duly filed a return of income in India offering such services to taxes, and that disallowing payments made by the Appellant would lead to double taxation. 14. Not appreciating that the said payment for intra group services of INR 5,66,05,177 has a direct nexus with the business ... length principle. Restructuring of legitimate business transactions would be a wholly arbitrary exercise the inequity of which could be compounded by double taxation created where the other tax administration does not share the same views as to how the transaction should be structured. It should again be noted that