“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

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

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT (Int Tax) Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5161/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2023-24 Owens Corning (Singapore) Deputy Commissioner Of Pte Ltd., Income Tax (International Tax), C/O. Owens Corning (India) Vs. Circle-3(2)(2), Pvt. Limited, 6Th Floor, 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Hiranandani Gardens, Bandra Kurla Complex, Powai, Mumbai-400051. Maharashtra-400076. Pan : Aabco5666L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sandeep Bhalla For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 10-07-2025, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, ("Ld.Drp"), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 115ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

fees for technical services' in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India and Singapore ("India-Singapore Tax Treaty"). 1.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case ... company as Fees for Technical Services ("FTS") under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as Article 12 of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA"). 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated in Singapore

DCIT(It)-4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arun Madhavachari Rangachari, Mumbai

ITA 3814/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 254Section 9(1)(vii)

assessee has not furnished a copy of the Tax Residency Certificate from the UAE Tax Authority to claim the benefits of the India-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). (h) Notwithstanding the above findings, the AO held that the income earned by the assessee is taxable in India as business

Superhouse Limited, Kanpur vs. CIT, International Taxation-3, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

prejudice to what has been stated above, the Ld. CIT has failed to even consider much less examine the relevant clauses of the various Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements ("DTAA") entered into with the countries of which the subsidiaries were resident, which either restricted the scope ... prejudice to what has been stated above, the Ld. CIT has failed to even consider much less examine the relevant clauses of the various Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements ("DTAA") entered into with the countries of which the subsidiaries were resident, which either restricted the scope

Pratibha Singh, Shimla vs. ACIT Circle, Circle Shimla

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 860/CHANDI/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court. The Hon’Ble High Court Upheld The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction Holding That The Assessing Officer Possessed

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aman Singhi, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

already been reopened and the matter is sub-judice the assessment of the same in the hands of the individual assessee amounts to double taxation which is not permissible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO reported ... Moreover the argument of the assessee that addition in her hands results in taxation in the hands of a wrong person and leads to double taxation is also misconceived. Double taxation would arise only where the same income is finally assessed in two hands. Mere pendency of proceedings in another

Padam Kumar Agarwal, Darjeeling Stores M G Marg vs. AO, Gangtok

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

ITA 3248/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

same receipts Rs.22,00,000 as unexplained income under Section 69A and Rs. 14,03,553 as estimated profit from business, leading to impermissible double taxation. The CIT(A) granted only Rs. 2,00,000 relief without basis, which was arbitrary. The ITAT Kolkata in Chandra Sales Agency held that

Repro India Limited, Lower Parel, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

provision for doubtful debts had been disallowed in earlier years and, therefore, upon reversal, the same was reduced from business income to avoid double taxation. It was further submitted that the bad debts written off were allowable under the provisions of the Act. 9. The Assessing Officer issued a show

M/S Houston Tours and Travels, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5906/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethm/S Houston Tours & Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Travels Circle 2(2) 3Rd Floor Manohardas Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Road, Boribuilder, C.S.T., Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400001 Pan/Gir No: Aajfh8097D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jayant Bhatt Respondent By Shri V. Vinodkumar, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

regular books of account, the cash realized from such sales cannot again be treated as unexplained income u/s 68, as this results in impermissible double taxation. 6) That the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that acceptance of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) and their deposit in bank accounts was legally ... hence when the sales is offered to tax, no further addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act. Otherwise, it would tantamount to double taxation which is not permissible in law. In so far as acceptance of cash against sales made during the demonetization period, the ITAT Mumbai

Sevalal Infrawork Private Limited, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward-1, Yavatmal

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

ITA 401/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy, Am

For Appellant: Miss Veena Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

making addition in the hands of the partner of the appellant where the tax is already discharged by the partnership firm thus leading to double taxation. 5. Whether the Ld. AO is justified in facts and circumstances of the case in passing the order making any ad-hoc assumptions

Patel Wines, Kheda vs. The Dy.CIT, Kheda Circle, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1740/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 250

cash-in-hand as bogus. The assessee also alleged violation of principles of natural justice and contended that the addition would result in double taxation of the same income. 6. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) considered the submissions of the assessee, the assessment order, and the material available on record ... creditor. In the present case, even that minimal standard has not been met. 13. The contention of the assessee that the addition results in double taxation is also devoid of merit. The Tax authorities have clearly demonstrated that the cash deposits during the demonetization period were far in excess

Shalin Rajendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1548/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

wholly improper for the AO to again tax these sale proceeds as unexplained cash u/s 69A of the Act, as it would amount double taxation of the same sum. This view is supported by the following decisions: a. CIT Vs Vishal Export Overseas ... Officer to be the income of the assessee, addition of the same amount once again under section 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we are in agreement with

ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

stated that the working capital adjustment duly captures the impact of credit terms, and therefore, a separate adjustment on outstanding receivables would lead to double taxation and the assessee maintained a uniform policy of not charging interest on delayed payments from both AEs and non-AEs. In assessee

Fabtech, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 198/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Fabtech……………...…….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 102A, Ballygunge Place, Kol-700019. [Pan: Aadff1311L] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 04, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.11.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015– 16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Income Tax Return For The Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.4,27,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Is Selected For Scrutiny & Accordingly Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued & In Response, The Ar Of The Assessee Appeared & Filed Relevant Documents & Submissions. The Assessing Officer Found That The Submissions Of The Assessee Are Not Tenable & An Amount Of Rs.98,83,992/- Which Is Alleged To Be Received During The Financial Year 2014-15 From Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. Disallowed & Added Back To The Income Of The Assessee. Fabtech 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 250

that the assessee had already offered the entire amount of Rs.98,83,992/- for taxation in the subsequent year, therefore, the addition would result double taxation. The ld. AR further submits that the said payment of Rs.98,83,992/- was received in F.Y 2014-15 and TDS of Rs.2 ... year and the said advance was accounted as income in the next year. Hence, the said addition of Rs.98,83,992/- would amount to double taxation in the hands of the assessee. It is important to mention here that before us, the ld. AR has submitted the reconciliation statement

Shabana Kaizer Jangbarwala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-42(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8636/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 69C

property which is reflected in the returns filed, therefore making addition in hands of the assessee was unjustified as the same will lead to double taxation. 8. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete and/or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts

Kamalkumar Ramkumar Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1975/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

extent of her 50% share, the Assessing Officer should verify the records and restrict the addition in the assessee’s hands accordingly to avoid double taxation. Subject to this limited verification, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Shri Kamalkumar Ramkumar Agrawal vs. DCIT Asst. Year

Mahendra Kumar Jagtaji, Salem vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Salem

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

ITA 1861/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shris.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं. Ita No. 1861/Chny/2025 & Sa 69/Chny/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Jagtaji, V. Dcit, Central Circle, 6/21, Devanayagam Pillai, Salem-636007 St. Shevapet, Salem-636002 [Pan: Apopm 3624 H] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Jaydip Desai, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69A

return filed on 31.03.2021 and paid due taxes (subject to adjustment against seized cash). Therefore, further addition beyond this amount amounts to double taxation and unjust enrichment. ITA 1861 Chny 2025 (AY 2020-21) & SA 69 Chny 2025 Mahendra Kumar Jagtaji Vs DCIT C C :: 8 :: 8. Agricultural Income – Rs.6

Raghu Ram Reddy Padoori, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1185/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1185/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Raghu Ram Reddy Padoori, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-9(1), Pan: Agtpp8984D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 26/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 24/12/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145

Assessing Officer; 9) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the addition made of Rs.41,52,000/- would amount to double taxation of the same income arising from the same turnover and that the Assessing Officer is not justified in assessing the income of Rs.41,52,000/-separately

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Manisha Kamal Khetan, Mumbai

ITA 7891/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 24Section 250Section 68

cash credit. At the same time, the Ld. CIT(A) directed that appropriate adjustment be made in A.Y. 2024-25 so as to avoid double taxation of the same income. Thus, this ground was partly allowed. 10. With regard to the addition of Rs. 7,31,35,963/- under section ... correctly appreciated that the source of receipt stood explained and that the character of income was house property income. The direction to avoid double taxation is also in consonance with settled principles. We do not find any infirmity in this finding. The contention of the learned DR that the learned

Ramani Mathuraprasad Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

ITA 7543/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Naimish JoshiFor Respondent: Date

Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 56(2)(vii)

stand taken by the spouse of the Assessee in the aforesaid appeal while adjudicating the present appeal preferred by the Assessee to avoid double taxation of same income. In terms of aforesaid Ground No.1.1 to 5.2 raised by the Assessee are treated as 4 Assessment Year 2017-2018 allowed

ACIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

debited to the profit and loss account were reversed and credited to the profit and loss account. Disallowing the same again will result in double taxation. For Chalinze - The Assessee recognized the revenue amounting to Rs.19,99,90,800/-for the amount of work and created a provision for expenses ... been reversed in subsequent years ie credited to the profit and loss account in subsequent years. Disallowing the same again will result in double taxation.” 8.3. In respect of provision for audit fees and property tax, according to assessee these are statutory provisions and are allowable deduction. For the audit

ACIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1