← 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

Bishnu Krishna Shrestha Through His Legal Heir Smt Shobha Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 4864/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 253

dated 14.05.2024 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (Annexure - 10 of this Paperbook) - is the applicability of Article 4 of the India- Nepal Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-Nepal DTAA”) on the Appellants in accordance with Section 90(2) of the Act. In order to determine the Appellants ... said international treaties along with Section 90(2) of the Act which mandate application of the tie-breaker test laid down in double taxation avoidance agreements for determining tax residency of individuals who are dual residents. 5. Aggrieved by the Assessment Orders passed by the Respondent, the Appellants had approached

Bishnu Krishna Shrestha Through His Legal Heir Smt Shobha Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 4863/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 253

dated 14.05.2024 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (Annexure - 10 of this Paperbook) - is the applicability of Article 4 of the India- Nepal Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-Nepal DTAA”) on the Appellants in accordance with Section 90(2) of the Act. In order to determine the Appellants ... said international treaties along with Section 90(2) of the Act which mandate application of the tie-breaker test laid down in double taxation avoidance agreements for determining tax residency of individuals who are dual residents. 5. Aggrieved by the Assessment Orders passed by the Respondent, the Appellants had approached

Bishnu Krishna Shrestha Through His Legal Heir Smt Shobha Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 4862/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 253

dated 14.05.2024 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (Annexure - 10 of this Paperbook) - is the applicability of Article 4 of the India- Nepal Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-Nepal DTAA”) on the Appellants in accordance with Section 90(2) of the Act. In order to determine the Appellants ... said international treaties along with Section 90(2) of the Act which mandate application of the tie-breaker test laid down in double taxation avoidance agreements for determining tax residency of individuals who are dual residents. 5. Aggrieved by the Assessment Orders passed by the Respondent, the Appellants had approached

Bishnu Krishna Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 4861/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 253

dated 14.05.2024 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (Annexure - 10 of this Paperbook) - is the applicability of Article 4 of the India- Nepal Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-Nepal DTAA”) on the Appellants in accordance with Section 90(2) of the Act. In order to determine the Appellants ... said international treaties along with Section 90(2) of the Act which mandate application of the tie-breaker test laid down in double taxation avoidance agreements for determining tax residency of individuals who are dual residents. 5. Aggrieved by the Assessment Orders passed by the Respondent, the Appellants had approached

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8260/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Huawei Telecommunications Vs. Dcit, (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), 7Th Floor, Tower-A, Spaze-1- Gurgaon Tech Park, Sohna Road, (Haryana) Gurgaon, Haryana Pin: 122 001 Aabch1376E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra and AnkurFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

other transactions for them. Restructuring of legitimate 17 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. 1.37 However, there ... reason for characterisation of such re-structuring as an arbitrary exercise, as given in the guidelines, is that it has the potential to create double taxation if the other tax administration does not share the same view as to how the transaction should be structured. 18. Two exceptions have been

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Baroda Gujarat Gramin Bank, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue fails on the sole

ITA 1251/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Rao, AR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41(1)

Schedule 14 (Miscellaneous Income) of the audited accounts and had already been offered to tax, and therefore any further addition would result in double taxation. 2.7 With respect to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund of Rs.31,46,177/-, the assessee explained that the delay in remittance arose on account ... already credited in the income side of profit and loss account and offered to tax and therefore deleted the addition treating it as double taxation. In the result, the appeal was partly allowed by sustaining only the disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and deleting the other additions

Sunpenta Mining Service Pvt. Ltd., Salem vs. DCIT, Cirlce-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3263/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3263/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: S/Shri P.M.Kathir, G. AkashFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

sales recorded in the books are held as genuine business receipts, then addition of cash deposited in the bank account once again results in double taxation. Mere because the cash were deposited during the demonetization period does not make it tainted. The assessee has duly explained the source

Hanumanthappa Pathrera Laxmana, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(1) & Tps, Shimogga

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 247/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Atul K Alur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, JCIT (DR)
Section 145(3)Section 69C

sundry creditors, he deleted the addition, holding that once purchases were taxed through estimation of profit, a separate addition for creditors would amount to double taxation. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT-A, both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. The assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga vs. Hanumanthappa Pathrera Laxmana, Shivamogga

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1066/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Atul K Alur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, JCIT (DR)
Section 145(3)Section 69C

sundry creditors, he deleted the addition, holding that once purchases were taxed through estimation of profit, a separate addition for creditors would amount to double taxation. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT-A, both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. The assessee

M/S Manikaran Power Ltd, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 471/RAN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 01/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) A.C.I.T., Manikaran Power Limited, Central Circle-2, Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Vs. Ranchi. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) J.C.I.T. (In Situ), Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Ranchi. Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee Manikaran Power Limited, A.C.I.T., Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee

payments had also offered the receipts to tax and the disallowance of the same in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation. It was a submission that against the said deletion, also, the revenue is in appeal. 6. As the ld. CIT(A) had not deleted ... lacs have duly disclosed the same in their ITR and that disallowing the same in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation which is bad in law. As such, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of deleting

DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 38/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.03/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) (Arising Out Of Ita No.38/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 43BSection 56

Instances have occurred in other state undertakings, where Corporations were asked to return the fund along with the interest accrued on it, leading to double taxation. 2. Regarding change in accounting method As per Assessment order U/s 143(3) The change in the method of accounting employed was not justified

M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 33/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.03/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) (Arising Out Of Ita No.38/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 43BSection 56

Instances have occurred in other state undertakings, where Corporations were asked to return the fund along with the interest accrued on it, leading to double taxation. 2. Regarding change in accounting method As per Assessment order U/s 143(3) The change in the method of accounting employed was not justified

M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 221/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.04/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) (Arising Out Of Ita No.200/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.221/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 56

Instances have occurred in other state undertakings, where Corporations were asked to return the fund along with the interest accrued on it, leading to double taxation. 3. Regarding undisclosed income u/s 69: local sales of firewood not routed through books As per assessment order u/s 143(3): During the course

DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 200/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.04/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) (Arising Out Of Ita No.200/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.221/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 56

Instances have occurred in other state undertakings, where Corporations were asked to return the fund along with the interest accrued on it, leading to double taxation. 3. Regarding undisclosed income u/s 69: local sales of firewood not routed through books As per assessment order u/s 143(3): During the course

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Raja Rao Parachuri, Visakhapatnam

ITA 374/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.374/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Raja Rao Parachuri, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aatpp2493B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: P. Murali & Co राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 07/08/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 08/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

For Appellant: P. Murali & CoFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

contention of the assessee to be correct. Also taxation of the same amount for the AY 2014-15 & 2013-14 would have resulted in double taxation of the same amount In view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision & facts discussed above, the contention of the assessee is accepted ... view that taxing the same stream of gain again in the subject year, i.e., A.Y. 2013–14, would undeniably lead to double taxation of the same income, which is not permissible under law. Also, we may herein observe that the revenue has not brought on record any cogent material

Nidra Hospitality Gujarat Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Taxn., Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 882/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40a

submitted that the TDS was deducted in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and on the basis of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with countries of residents of the parties concerned. Form15CB was obtained for each transaction involving payment of non-resident taxation at source advised

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Nashik vs. Yogi Cotex Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2058/PUN/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2058/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs Yogi Cotex Private Acit, Central Circle-1, Nashik Limited, 4A, Vikas Centre, S V Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai-400054 Maharashtra Pan-Aaacy5355P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale-
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

part of income already taxed in the hands of the appellant and other group companies, Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- constitutes double taxation, which is impermissible in law, particularly when the source of income and its utilization are both duly disclosed and accepted by the department. Lastly ... corroborative evidence on record. 4.5 The appellant has strongly contended that the addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- under Section 68 results in unjust double taxation, as the amount forms part of the aggregate sum of Rs. 5,00,01,614/- that was voluntarily disclosed and offered

Denso International Asia Co., Ltd., Thailand vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 402/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.402/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Denso International Asia Co. Ltd., 888 Moo 1, Bangna-Trad Road Km 27 5, Bangbo Subdistrict, Samutprakarn Province, Thailand, 10560 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadcd-4652-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Interantional Taxation 1(2)(2), Civic Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Vishal Kalra, Saumyendra Tomar, Advocates & Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 28.11.2024, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 2. Facts Of The Case In Brief As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is A Tax Resident Of Thailand. The Assessee Acts As Regional Service Centre Of The Denso

For Appellant: S/Shri Vishal Kalra, Saumyendra TomarFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

provides an option to the Appellant to be governed under the provisions of the Act or the provisions of the double taxation convention entered into by India (with the country in which the other party is a resident), to the extent it is more beneficial to the taxpayer. Reliance

Huawei International Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT-Circle 2(1)(1), Intl. Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of 7

ITA 2648/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh & Sa 298/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Huawei International Pte. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 51, Change Business Park, Circle-2(1)(1), Central-2, #07-08, The International Signature, Singapore Taxation, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacch3694N Assessee By : Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv Shri Himanshu Aggarwal, Adv Shri Yash Nagar, Adv Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/10/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. s. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

income accrued or arose to it in India either under the provisions of the Act or under the beneficial provisions of India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. It was specifically pointed out that software transferred by the assessee is in the nature of transfer of „copyright article‟ and not transfer

Subhash Badriprasad Shahu, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 421/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesubhash Badriprasad Shahu, Plot No.84, Near Annapurna Dall Mill, Bagad Ganj, Small Factory Area ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 008. Maharashtra. Pan – Agqps9660N V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(3), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri. Abhay Agrawal.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Abhay Agrawal.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

already offered the purchases for income tax purpose and included in the Trading Account and again taxing the same purchase will amount to double taxation. Whereas, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that due to information from GST authorities, the supplier of goods is not a geninue entity and therefore