← 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

Senghani and Associates, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5039/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsenghani & Associates, 808, 8Th Floor Ecstacy Business Park, Jsd Road Mulund West, Mumbai – 400080 ............... Appellant Pan: Acafs6377C V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward - 28(3)(1), Ito, Vashi Railway Station Building, ……………… Respondent Navi Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(1)Section 234BSection 250

being retention money since such amount was already subject to tax in previous year and taxing again would lead to double taxation. Thus, the additions made by Learned AO confirmed by Hon'ble CIT (A) be deleted. 4. On the facts & circumstances of the case ... received from opening outstanding of last year, since such amount was already subject to tax in previous year and taxing again would lead to double taxation. Thus, the additions made by Learned AO confirmed by Hon'ble CIT (A) be deleted. 5. On the facts & circumstances of the case

Fexprime Finance Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1361/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 41(1)

credited to the Profit & Loss Account as per section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As a result, the addition leads to double taxation of the same income of the Appellant, which is wrong and totally unlawful. Page | 2 ITA No.1361/Del/2025 3. That on the facts ... separately adding Page | 5 ITA No.1361/Del/2025 such an amount in the clause 20 of Schedule BP of ITR, as it would lead to double taxation of INR 14,45,64,504.” 11. Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal of the assessee, simply observed that the said disallowance was indicated

Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakaria, Jetpur vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 156/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 156/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Ito, Wd 1(2)(1), Rajkot Plot No. 82 Satyam Park, Amarnagar Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Jetpur,(Rajkot-Gujarat) -360370 Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agnps7407C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 28

revenue. Now, to tax such compensation/ enhanced compensation, and interest thereon, in the hands of other co-owner, would be tantamount to double taxation. Therefore, the order passed by the assessing officer is sustainable in the eyes of law. 15. We note that the assessee had filed return of income

Seema Sureka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2682/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) : (I) Misc. Receipts Of Rs.96,000/- In Cash Shown As Gifts Received & Offered To Tax; (Ii) Receipt Of A Gift Of Rs. 5,84,000/- From An Huf, Claimed As Exempt U/S 56(2) Of The Act; & (Iii) Receipts Of Rs.2,99,133/- Shown As Profit From Commodity Trading, Albeit On Off-Market Basis.

Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

family estate is not exigible to taxation. The said exemption has been given on the pattern of a partnership firm to avoid double taxation of the same amount. In the case of partnership firm, when the partnership firm has been assessed to income tax separately, then, the share of profit

Foster Wheels (Gb) Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, International Tax Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 927/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 245M

total reversal of ₹59,50,60,777/- in the relevant AY 2018-19 cannot be taxed as the same would otherwise amount to double taxation of the same sum. 10. The Ld. AR has rightly pointed out that, at the material time when the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned

Wts Energy Dmcc, Dubai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, assessment order is quashed, and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/DEL/2025[AY 2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate along with Sohum Dua, Abhyudaya Shankar BajpaiFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234ASection 270A

chargeable to tax in India either as business income or as income from other sources under the provisions of the Act read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United Arab Emirates. 9. Incorrect levy of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D

Gsma Ltd, Usa vs. ACIT Circle Intl Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2446/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Gsma Ltd., 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 450, Atalanta, Untied State Of America ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecg-1610-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(3)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri P.P Singh, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 06.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Issued Defect Memo Stating That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1076 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri P.P Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

considered opinion, in order to bring the alleged managerial services within the ambit of fees for technical services under the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, the services would have to satisfy the 'make available' test and such services should enable the person acquiring the services to apply the technology

Gnana Kathir Singarayar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

ITA 5503/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Magnum Equity The Acit Circle 4 (3), बनाम/ Broking Ltd., Room No. 638, 6Th Vs. D-30, Empire Mahal, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 806, Dr. B A Road, M.K. Road, Khodadad, Mumbai - 400023 Mumbai - 400014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5661N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhle, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 88E

Profits and Gains of Business and Profession while computing the taxable income of the Appellant; (b) Adding the said amount again would lead to double taxation of the same income and; (c) In any case, the business income of the Appellant would have to be reduced by an amount

Pravin Prakash Magar, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals- Ward 4, Panvel, Maharashtra

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

ITA 5118/MUM/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Pravin Prakash Magar Cit(Appeals) Ward 4, Panvel B 106 Pratiksha Chs Plot No. 55, Panvel, Maharashtra 410206 Vs. Sec 15, Koper Khairne, Kopar Khairne S.O., Mumbai 400709 Pan No. Bpapm1266A Appellant Respondent : Shri.Pravin Magar (Assessee In Person) Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appear) Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 Date Of : 03/11/2025 Pronouncement Order Per Om Prakash Kant, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 16.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] For Ay 2024-25 In Relation To Order U/S. 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short The ‘Act’] Passed By The Ao For Short Deduction Of Tax At Source On Payment Made For Purchase Of Property From Non-Resident Indian. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Respondent: Shri.Pravin Magar (
Section 195Section 197Section 200ASection 201Section 201(1)

authoritatively held that once the deductee has paid taxes on the income received, recovery of the same amount from the deductor would amount to double taxation and is impermissible in law. 5.1 Nevertheless, the statutory framework postulates compliance with the procedural requirement of furnishing Form No. 26A under Rule 31ACB

Skechers Sarl, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2028/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234BSection 270A

respect of Buying Agency Commission of INR 35,13,00,269 as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') as per Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Swiss Confederation ('India-Swiss DTAA'); 4. erred in holding that the services rendered by Skechers SARL ... business connection in India, the said business income shall not be liable to tax in India as per Article 7 of India-Swiss Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India- Swiss DTAA). 3.5 In the draft assessment order, the Ld.AO proposed to deny beneficial provisions of India-Swiss DTAA on the ground

Mahek Trading, Anjar vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1 Gandhidham, Gandhidham

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

ITA 394/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 394/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mahek Trading Vs. Income-Tax Office, Wd-1, (Change In Firm Name Sector-8, Effective From F.Y. 2016-17) Gandhidham - 370201 12 Meter Road, Patni Bazar Anjar – 370110( Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm2604L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Page 6 of 10 Mahek Trading thereon, and audited books of accounts were not rejected by the assessing officer, hence there should not be double taxation in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, learned Counsel submitted that entire addition made by the assessing officer should be deleted. 11. We have ... accounts and paid the taxes thereon, and audited books of accounts were not rejected by the assessing officer, hence there should not be double taxation in the hands of the assessee. We note that assessee is engaged in the business of gold bullion and Silver, on semi- wholesale and retail

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir - 4, Surat vs. Nareshkumar B. Agarwal, Surat

ITA 164/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

Section 147Section 250

telescopic effect) of undisclosed income of the earlier year or of the current year against undisclosed income/investment and, therefore, the same amounts of double taxation. 2) The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not giving set off/telescopic effect of undisclosed income of the earlier year or of the current year ... partner, to the extent of his share of profit, against undisclosed income/investment in his case and, therefore, to that extent, the same amounts of double taxation. 3) The appellant reserves to right add, alter and delete any grounds of appeal." 5. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir - 4, Surat vs. Nareshkumar B. Agarwal, Surat

ITA 163/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

Section 147Section 250

telescopic effect) of undisclosed income of the earlier year or of the current year against undisclosed income/investment and, therefore, the same amounts of double taxation. 2) The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not giving set off/telescopic effect of undisclosed income of the earlier year or of the current year ... partner, to the extent of his share of profit, against undisclosed income/investment in his case and, therefore, to that extent, the same amounts of double taxation. 3) The appellant reserves to right add, alter and delete any grounds of appeal." 5. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue

Nareshkumar B. Agarwal, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir - 4, Surat

ITA 136/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

Section 147Section 250

telescopic effect) of undisclosed income of the earlier year or of the current year against undisclosed income/investment and, therefore, the same amounts of double taxation. 2) The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not giving set off/telescopic effect of undisclosed income of the earlier year or of the current year ... partner, to the extent of his share of profit, against undisclosed income/investment in his case and, therefore, to that extent, the same amounts of double taxation. 3) The appellant reserves to right add, alter and delete any grounds of appeal." Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 472/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Motion Education Limited, 394, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota Private स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAICM4637L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Motion Limited, CO. Nos.20 & 21/JP/2025 (Arising out of ITA. Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 &

For Appellant: Mrs. Raksha Birla CA (V.C)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 153A

business receipts are not disturbed, no addition is warranted in respect of cash deposits during demonetization period. Making a separate addition would lead to double taxation, It is stated that if the AD alleged that the appellant has brought the unaccounted money generated into the books on that day, then ... turnover and the amount of cash deposited is already offered for taxation as part of business turnover. Making a separate addition would lead to double taxation. 08. The business receipts shown by the appellant had been accepted by service tax Department. The ld. AO has neither disputed the books

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 455/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Mrs. Raksha Birla CA (V.C)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 153A

business receipts are not disturbed, no addition is warranted in respect of cash deposits during demonetization period. Making a separate addition would lead to double taxation, It is stated that if the AD alleged that the appellant has brought the unaccounted money generated into the books on that day, then ... case of Dewas Soya Ltd, Ujjain vs. ITO Appeal No. 336/Ind/2012 has held that the claim of the appellant that such addition resulted into double taxation of the same income in the same year is also acceptable because on one hand cost of the sales has been taxed (after deducting

Aam India Manufacturing Corporation Private Limited, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1205/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 274Section 41(1)

appreciating that the income has already been offered to tax in subsequent years as per revenue recognition policy adopted by the Appellant leading to double taxation of the same income: 13. Erred in making the aforesaid addition without mentioning any section number under which addition is being made. Short credit

Kirtikumar Champaklal Bhimani (Properitor M/S. Shanti Industries), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4145/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vihit ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat
Section 143(1)

Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Double Taxation of Rental Income Assessment Year 2021-2022 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre ... consider the appellant’s submissions and erroneously treated the said amount as business income in addition to house property income, thereby resulting in double taxation of the same income, which is wholly unjustified and contrary to settled principles of taxation. 2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal

Prakash H. Mutha, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1, Thane

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the

ITA 5984/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 127Section 145(3)Section 153A

sales have already been brought to tax by applying the gross profit margin method, any further addition in respect thereof would tantamount to double taxation. 10. 2. The Ld.DR on the contrary relied on the order passed by authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides

Prakash H. Mutha, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1, Thane

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the years stands partly allowed

ITA 5983/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 127Section 145(3)Section 153A

sales have already been brought to tax by applying the gross profit margin method, any further addition in respect thereof would tantamount to double taxation. 10. 2. The Ld.DR on the contrary relied on the order passed by authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides