← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Adaab Hotels Ltd, Delhi

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

ITA 4677/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit, Vs. Adaab Hotels Limited, New Delhi. 81, Adchini, Sr. Aurobindo Marg, Delhi – 110 016. (Pan : Aabca0850G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 06.08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 09.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 1,70,52,504/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Company Has Failed To Produce The Relevant Document As Required By The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,70,52,504/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act By Ao, On The Basis Of Fresh/New Evidences Produced By The Assessee During The Appellate Proceedings Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Produce

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 68

income, cash deposited in bank account out of such cash sales cannot be taxed u/s 68 of the Act as it tantamounts to double taxation. c) That once audited set of books of accounts are accepted by the AO it would be presumed that sales duly recorded in the books ... duly offered for taxation by the appellant, the AO has not brought on record as to how taxing the same would not amount to double taxation. vi) It was also not the case of the AO that the appellant had booked any bogus/non-existing expenses in its books of accounts post

M/S. Philips International B.V., Kolkata vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 544/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Ms. Riya Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Information Technology Services as taxable without appreciating the fact that the same ought not to be taxable under Article 12(5) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Netherlands ('India-Netherlands DTAA') as the appellant do not 'make available' technical knowledge, skills, experience, etc. 3 ITANo.543&544/Kol/2025 ... rendition of Support Services as taxable without appreciating the fact that the same ought not to be taxable under Article 12(5) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Netherlands ('India- Netherlands DTAA') as the appellant do not make available technical knowledge, skills, experience, etc. 1.2 That

M/S. Philips Electronics Nederland B.V., Kolkata vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 543/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Ms. Riya Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Information Technology Services as taxable without appreciating the fact that the same ought not to be taxable under Article 12(5) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Netherlands ('India-Netherlands DTAA') as the appellant do not 'make available' technical knowledge, skills, experience, etc. 3 ITANo.543&544/Kol/2025 ... rendition of Support Services as taxable without appreciating the fact that the same ought not to be taxable under Article 12(5) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Netherlands ('India- Netherlands DTAA') as the appellant do not make available technical knowledge, skills, experience, etc. 1.2 That

Prakash Narayanan, Bengaluru vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 969/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 90

said relief u/s. 90 of the Act. We have also perused the relevant provision 90 which states that in order to avoid the double taxation, the above said provision was made. Similarly, the Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules which deals with the FTC specifies that the foreign ... income corresponding to such tax has been offered to tax or assessed to tax in India. This is a beneficial provision to avoid the double taxation. When the fact of the payment of tax in a foreign country has been established, then automatically, the assessee is entitled for the benefit

Sotc Travel Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3758/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2023-24 Sotc Travel Limited, Dcit, Circle-3(3)(1), 13Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Nm Joshi Marg, New Marine Lines, Delisle Road, S.O., Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan : Aagcs6725D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Pratiksha P.Jain Revenue By : Shri Swapnil Choudhary Date Of Hearing : 31-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-08-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Kolkata [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 29-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24. 2. During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Taken Us Through Ground No.2 Of The Assessee‟S Appeal & Submitted That The Addl/Jcit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Action Of The Ao/Cpc, In Making The Addition Of Rs.18,11,71,802/- U/S. 41(1) Of The Act, Without Appreciating That The Said Amount Has Already Been Considered By The Assessee While Filing Its Return Of Income & The Same Resulted In Double Taxation. In This Regard, Our

For Appellant: Ms. Pratiksha P.JainFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 143(1)(a)Section 41(1)

without appreciating that the said amount has already been considered by the assessee while filing its return of income and the same resulted in double taxation. In this regard, our 2 reference was drawn to the audited financial statements of the assessee- company which are contained at page

Shri Shri Sandeep Meghani, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (Cg)

ITA 226/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 225 & 226/Bil/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Sandeep Meghani, V Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Prop. M/S. Ramchandra Meghani & S Central Circle, Raipur (C. G) Sons, D-30, Shiv Shakti Villa, Sector-2, Bajaj Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (Cg) Pan: Ajqpm2005E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69Section 69D

before the AO to show that the amount was recorded in assessee's books. The assessee has contended that the addition would lead to double taxation. Therefore, the addition should not have been made. However, no evidence has been furnished to show that the amount has already been added either

Shri Shri Sandeep Meghani, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (Cg)

ITA 225/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 225 & 226/Bil/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Sandeep Meghani, V Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Prop. M/S. Ramchandra Meghani & S Central Circle, Raipur (C. G) Sons, D-30, Shiv Shakti Villa, Sector-2, Bajaj Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (Cg) Pan: Ajqpm2005E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69Section 69D

before the AO to show that the amount was recorded in assessee's books. The assessee has contended that the addition would lead to double taxation. Therefore, the addition should not have been made. However, no evidence has been furnished to show that the amount has already been added either

Sameer Exports, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed as infructuous

ITA 834/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JClT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(iiia)

section 2(h)(i) and hence concluded erroneously that the Mutual Fund is not Securities. D. The Officers below erred under the principles of double taxation as they have taxed the same income of Rs.5,86,888/- twice over. 6. The addition sustained in the order is contrary

Continental Foundation Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2678/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 Continental Foundation Joint Assistant Commissioner Of Venture, Income Tax, Circle-38(1), Continental House-28, Vs. Room No.2202, E-2, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19 Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aaaac0084D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Advocate Sh. Shivam Malik, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’]. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred & Was Not Justified In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs 2.31,80,000/- On Account Of Reimbursement Of Legal & Professional Fee Paid To Members Of The Appellant, By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40Ba) Of The Act, Conveniently Ignoring Earlier Orders U/S 195(2) To The Effect That Impugned Amounts Were Not Covered U/S 40(Ba).

Section 195(2)Section 244ASection 40Section 40b

deleted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the arbitrary action of the learned AO has resulted in double taxation, as the payees of employees’ salaries, being seconded employees, have included respective incomes in the personal taxes and paid the taxes thereon

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Private Limited, Coimbatore

ITA 246/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 245 & 246/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.Ο No.21/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.245/Chny/2025] The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore Vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, Hi Tech Engineering & Service Sector Sez, Annur Road, Village Kittampalayam & Karumathampatty, Coimbatore – 641 659. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.Cit निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca & Ms. Soundariya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2025 आदेश /O R D Er Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 Both Dated 28.11.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter The 'Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection For

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144C(4)Section 250Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Private Limited, Coimbatore

ITA 245/CHNY/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 245 & 246/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O No.21/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.245/Chny/2025] The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore Vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, Hi Tech Engineering & Service Sector Sez, Annur Road, Village Kittampalayam & Karumathampatty, Coimbatore – 641 659. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Pan: Aabch 8089G (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) : Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.Cit : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca & Ms. Soundariya, Ca : 15.07.2025 : 01.08.2025 आदेश /Order Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 Both Dated 28.11.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter The 'Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection For

Section 143(2)Section 144C(4)Section 250Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

The DCIT Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Kangad, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

ITA 321/RJT/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.11 To 20/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2020-21 बनाम/ Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Deputy Commissioner Of Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs. Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Adepk 3471 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.21 To 23/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2014-15, 2016-17 &2017-18 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta Kangad Vs. Estate”, 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, Rajkot-360001 Gandhidham-370 201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aabca 8202 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.15/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Hetab Shamjibhai Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bbz-South-60, Zanda Chowk, Vs. “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aqtpk 7484 M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 153A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Incme Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal vs. Swarna Sukh, Bhopal

ITA 691/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

Navbharat Holidays, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1) (Previous Ward-5(2)(5)), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1753/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

argued that the action of the CIT(A) in ignoring such cogent evidences and upholding the addition of Rs.20,12,768/- leads to manifest double taxation of the same receipt, once in the year of receipt and again in the year of accrual. Such double taxation is impermissible ... under mercantile system of accounting, and that net profit of 1.39% on total receipts was already admitted in that year. In order to avoid double taxation of the same income, we are inclined to grant relief to that extent. 6.8 Accordingly, we direct that out of the total cash deposits

Gruh Finance Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1228/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Ms. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: (sl.nos.1&4) Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

duly taxed in AY 2013-14 and, therefore, the same could not be taxed in AY 2014-15 as it will amount to double taxation. The Ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee has not furnished any supportive evidence ITA Nos.1228/Ahd/2019, 855/Ahd/2017, ITA Nos.138/Ahd/2018 & 1126/Ahd/2017 Asst. Years

Gruh Finance Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 138/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Ms. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: (sl.nos.1&4) Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

duly taxed in AY 2013-14 and, therefore, the same could not be taxed in AY 2014-15 as it will amount to double taxation. The Ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee has not furnished any supportive evidence ITA Nos.1228/Ahd/2019, 855/Ahd/2017, ITA Nos.138/Ahd/2018 & 1126/Ahd/2017 Asst. Years

Gruh Finance Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 855/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Ms. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: (sl.nos.1&4) Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

duly taxed in AY 2013-14 and, therefore, the same could not be taxed in AY 2014-15 as it will amount to double taxation. The Ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee has not furnished any supportive evidence ITA Nos.1228/Ahd/2019, 855/Ahd/2017, ITA Nos.138/Ahd/2018 & 1126/Ahd/2017 Asst. Years

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Gruh Finance Ltd., Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1126/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Ms. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: (sl.nos.1&4) Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

duly taxed in AY 2013-14 and, therefore, the same could not be taxed in AY 2014-15 as it will amount to double taxation. The Ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee has not furnished any supportive evidence ITA Nos.1228/Ahd/2019, 855/Ahd/2017, ITA Nos.138/Ahd/2018 & 1126/Ahd/2017 Asst. Years

Mrs Poonam Patni, Pune vs. ITO(It), Ward-3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1193/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1193/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Mrs. Poonam Patni, V The Income Tax Officer, S.No.1A, F-1, Irani Market S. (It) Ward-3, Pune. Compound, Yerwada, Pune – 411006. Maharashtra. Pan: Aarpp6155A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C H Naniwadekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-3, Chennai Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2025 For A.Y.2022-23, Emanating From The Order U/S.143(1) Of The Act, Dated 26.10.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(1)Section 250

last ground is against the inclusion of Surcharge and Education Cess in the amount of tax charged by the AO under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 7. The Assessing Officer included Surcharge and Education Cess in the amount of tax determined by him under the DTAA against which

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bp Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6645/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Jay Bhansali, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 147r

since the appellant has already offered the profit/ (loss) on such scrips as business income hence the addition made u/s 68 would amount to double taxation which is not permissible. 9.18 I further note that as regards the addition made on account of Unsecured Loans from Shri Naresh Manakchand Jain