← 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

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3012/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others within the diary notings, and therefore, any addition based on them would result in duplication and double taxation. 13. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, allowed following reliefs:- (i) Relief of Rs.1,00,18,000 on account of errors in the entries ... accepted the receipts to belong to the assessee and no valid documents and reconciliation for claiming the relief citing the same to be double taxation had been filed; 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

Kritika Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 777/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.777/Del./2025, A.Y. 2019-20 Kritika Jain Income Tax Officer, C/O. Ds Legal & Associates, Ward 36(1), B-50, Lgf, South Extension-Ii, Vs. Civic Centre, New Delhi Minto Road, New Delhi Pan: Aftpa6657B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shaantanu Jain, Advocate Sh. Dipanshu Jain, Advocate Ms. Jahanvi Khanna, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2019-20 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 143(2)

accounts of the appellant assessee; therefore, taxing profit @ 12.5% imbedded in the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.65,60,000/- again was nothing but double taxation. The Ld. Counsel, placing reliance on the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Vayam Technologies Ltd. ITA No. 1477/del/2023, prayed for relief. Thus

Stercon Energy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5798/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153C

correct taxable entity in law, irrespective of whether Mr. Himanshu Verma had previously returned certain amounts in his individual capacity. 2. Principle Against Double Taxation Not Attracted The assessee's plea that the said income has already been assessed in the personal hands of Mr. Himanshu Verma in earlier years

Stercon Energy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle- 29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5797/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153C

correct taxable entity in law, irrespective of whether Mr. Himanshu Verma had previously returned certain amounts in his individual capacity. 2. Principle Against Double Taxation Not Attracted The assessee's plea that the said income has already been assessed in the personal hands of Mr. Himanshu Verma in earlier years

Stercon Energy Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5796/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153C

correct taxable entity in law, irrespective of whether Mr. Himanshu Verma had previously returned certain amounts in his individual capacity. 2. Principle Against Double Taxation Not Attracted The assessee's plea that the said income has already been assessed in the personal hands of Mr. Himanshu Verma in earlier years

Alka Khandaka, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sauravh Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

considered the turnover and thereby the income of that has already been taxed and thereby charging the cash deposit again is resulting the double taxation of 19 Alka Khandaka vs. ITO the same amount and that is not permitted under the law. The assessee submitted cash book, Bank book ... Stock movement and purchases did not support such abnormal sales. The so-called sales were therefore only a colourable device to accommodate unexplained cash. Double Taxation Argument Misplaced The assessee relied on various judicial pronouncements where sales were accepted as genuine. These are distinguishable because in those cases, purchases were

Ranjeet Singh, Lucknow vs. D/ACIT-4, Lucknow

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

ITA 331/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ranjeet Singh, Vs. The Dcit / Acit-4, 459, Ameer Nagar, Aishbagh, Lucknow-226001 Lucknow-226004 Pan: Afsps0877G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 22.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed On 21.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding An Addition Of Rs.31,90,000/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period As Unexplained, The Same Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, Be Deleted. 02. Because The Entire Cash Deposited In Bank Is Part Of The Sale Proceeds & Realization Of Debts, The Addition Made Is Purely On Suspicions & Surmises, Such Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, Be Deleted. 03. Because There Being No Change In The Method Of Accounting Regularly Followed By The Assessee & The Same Having Being Consistently Accepted, The Books Of Account Having Not Been Rejected, The Stock Tally Not Disputed, The Accounts Being Tax Audited, There Was No Reason For The Ao To Disbelieve The Cash Deposited In The Bank Treating The Same As Unexplained, The Addition Of Rs.31,90,000/- Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted. 04. Because The Amount Of Rs.31,90,000/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank Being Part Of Sale Proceeds & Cash Receipts Already Charged To Revenue For The Purposes Of Computation Of Income, Separate Addition Of The Same Has Resulted Into Double Taxation, Not Permitted By Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)

sale proceeds and cash receipts already charged to revenue for the purposes of computation of income, separate addition of the same has resulted into double taxation, not permitted by law, the addition made be deleted. 1 Ranjeet Singh A.Y. 2017-18 05. Because the computation of income as done

Synacor Inc., Hamburg vs. ACIT, Int.Tax. Circle- 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1802/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1802/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2018-19) Synacor Inc. 485, Sunset Drive, Office #114, Hamburg, Ny 14075 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaxcs-8643-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon & Ms. Seetal Kandpal, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 16/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 15.01.2025, Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri Deepak Chopra, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal, However, The Effective Grounds Assailing The Addition By Treating Sale Of Software Licenses As Fee For Technical Services (Fts) Are Ground No. 8, 10 & 16 Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon &For Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT(DR)
Section 147

services could not be characterised as FIS, under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United States of America (India – USA 10. That on facts, the Respondent/ DRP did not appreciate that training

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Intertnational Taxation Circle-1, Dehradun vs. Huyndai Heavy Industries Co Ltd, Tyagi Road Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 91/DDN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 254

Bombay office since it could not be held to be a Permanent Establishment in view of Article 5(4)(e) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.” 8. By respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand in Assessee’s own case

Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Limited, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 54/DDN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 254

Bombay office since it could not be held to be a Permanent Establishment in view of Article 5(4)(e) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.” 8. By respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand in Assessee’s own case

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Limited, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 156/DDN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 254

Bombay office since it could not be held to be a Permanent Establishment in view of Article 5(4)(e) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.” 8. By respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand in Assessee’s own case

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Royal Developers, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 448/JPR/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

investment and paid the taxes thereon and any adverse inference in the hands of the assessee firm, if called for, the same would be double taxation of an income firstly in the hands of Shri Dharmendra Agarwal and Shri Hemant Garg and secondly in the hands of the assessee firm ... fund flow statement has also been accepted by the Id. AO. Any further addition on the same figures shall tantamount to double addition and double taxation thereon and deserves to be deleted. 3. Holding the amount invested by partners as loan: In this regard it is submitted that

Naveen Kumar Musinipally, Usa vs. ADIT (Int-Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly

ITA 323/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 234A

relevant taxes. Therefore, once again addition towards capital gain on very same transaction for the year under consideration amounts to 15 ITA.No.323/Hyd./2024 double taxation, which is not permissible in law. Therefore, he submitted that, the Assessing Officer is erred in making addition towards capital gains for the assessment

B S Somasekhar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1545/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14 Mr. Bommanayakanahalli Siddaiah Somashekhar, Vs. Ito, #51/4 21St Main, 22Nd Cross, Behind Maruthi Ward – 5(1)(1), Mandira, Vijaynagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 040, Karnataka. Pan : Ainps 4894 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Adarsh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Adarsh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 148Section 2(47)

before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the statement of facts and submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that it would be double taxation on the sale of one land. The property was transferred in favour of Shri. Pradeep Krishna in the year 1997-98 by registered

Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions Ag, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Transfer Pricing Circle -4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3621/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarthyssenkrupp Industrial V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Solutions Ag बनाम Income Tax,Transfer Pricing C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., 1A- Circle – 4(2)(2), Air India D, Vandhna Building, 11 Building, Nariman Point, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – Mumbai–400021, Maharashtra 110 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp5301B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. J.Amalsadwala,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)
Section 271GSection 273BSection 92DSection 92D(1)Section 92D(3)

During the year under consideration,it received certain income comprising of fees for technical services and Royalty in terms of Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) between India and Germany and taxed at the rate of 10% on a gross basis. The return was selected for scrutiny

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 521/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16\

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;i qj U;k;ihB] t;i qj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR

M/S. Bekaert Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1003/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Tribunals order) whether falls within the ambit of article 12(3)(a) of Indo-Belgium Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India and Belgium as applicable for the year under consideration. 3. The Hon'ble Third Member after hearing both the parties concurred with the view expressed ... January, 2001 (INCOME TAX) Whereas the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Kingdom of Belgium for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income came into force on the 1st day of October, 1997, after

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Niranjan Patidar, Neemuch

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 438/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

been worked out by Sh. Mahesh Gupta and offered for tax. Hence any adverse view in the hands of assessee would tantamount to double taxation. It is therefore submitted that the addition so made by the Ld. AO deserves to be deleted. 5. Facts narrated at Sr. No. 3 above

Kovida Designs, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 997/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: C.A_ T. Ram PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 69A

deposits were accepted as part of sales/gross receipts and business income was estimated on such receipts, a separate addition under Section 69A amounts to double taxation of the same amount, which is unjustified and legally unsustainable. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, or withdraw ... adopted by the Ld. AO. Accordingly, as per the Ld. AR, a separate addition under section 69A of the Act would result in double taxation of the same amount in the hands of the assessee i.e. once as part of business turnover (on which profits have been estimated) and again

ITO Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Vanguard Jewels Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3600/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito Ward-13(3)(1) Vs. Vanguard Jewels R. No. 227, Aayakar Ltd, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Office No. 501, Churchgate, Mumbai- Adibaba Apartment, 400 020 Gazdar Scheme, 16 Th Road, Rajesh Khanna Garden, Santacruz(W), Mumbai-400 054 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv3480A (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250

been upheld in the appellate proceedings, the protective assessments in the hands of the appellant needs to be deleted, so that there is no double taxation of income. However, in case the addition made in the hands of Shri Parveen Kumar Jain is deleted in any of the appellate proceedings ... mentioning/quoting the appellate proceedings in which the substantive additions have been/were upheld. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in mentioning about double taxation without referring to order of any Appellate Authority who has confirmed the addition in the hand of Shri Pravin kumar Jain. 5. The appellant prays that