“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

Vinod Gupta, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhunjhunu

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

ITA 259/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 2Section 250Section 251(1)

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. In view of the above situation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order ... sales reflected in the books of accounts are also made part of the addition under section 68 of the Act, it would amount to double taxation, as rightly submitted on behalf of the appellant. However, it is significant to observe here that when, as per material available with the department

Harishkumar Khushalray Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2) Now Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2042/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Harishkumar Khushalray Bhatt Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) P/1, Chandragupta Apartment Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Gordhandas Patel Hospital Vastrapur Ahmedabad. Pan : Abspb 3786 F (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Pritesh L. Shah, Ar : Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh L. Shah, AR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69ASection 80G

mechanically resorted to both section 68 and section 69A without proper analysis. It was submitted that the additions resulted in double taxation of the same amounts, and the rejection of the books was not justified in the absence of any cogent discrepancy. The AR accordingly prayed for deletion

Kishor Jethalal Morbia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 582/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvs. Assessing Officer, Kishor Jethalal Morbia Assessment Unit, 304/310, Kailas Plaza, Income Tax Vallabh Baug Lane, Department Ghatkopar (East), Jurisdictional Mumbai-400 075 Assessing Officer, Ito 27(2)(1), Vashi Railway Station, Vashi Navi Mumbai- 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm4447J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anant N. Pai, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 250Section 51

please be deleted in appeal 5. Ground no. 5:-Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Appellant submits that he has been subjected to double taxation on the amount of Rs. 15,74,847/- in the assessment order. The amount has been taxed firstly as part of his returned income ... also, again as a separate addition u/s 68 in the assessment order. Double taxation may not be permitted, in any case, in this appeal. 6. Ground no. 6:- The lower authorities erred in passing their respective orders without granting the Appellant an adequate opportunity of being heard. natural justice

Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 29/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.29/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Raj Enterprise Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ F.P.No. 89,R.S. No.24 & 25, Ward -1(3)(4), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. T.P. No.4 Kpm Residency, Anavil Business Center, Adajan Road, Opp. Chandan Park, City Surat-395 009 Light, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifr 8742 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)

made. The AO has totally ignored the submission and findings in the original assessment proceeding. 6) The addition of Rs.18,53,820/- amounts to double taxation. 7) The ld. AO has erred in making the order u/s 144. 8) The ld. AO has totally ignored the fact that in past

Sumukh Suresh Bhardwaj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 935/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Veerabasanagouda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

construed as procedural rather than substantive. The intent of the legislature, as reflected in section 90 of the Act, is to provide relief from double taxation. The denial of Foreign Tax Credit solely on account of a procedural lapse would defeat this very purpose. Further the provisions of DTAA override ... credit for foreign taxes. Article 24(4)(a) is relevant in the present context. Same is extracted below: “4. In the case of India, double taxation shall be avoided as follows: (a) the amount of Australian tax paid under the laws of Australia and in accordance with the provisions

Hitendrakumar Thakorbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Ward 3(1)(5), Income Tax Officer, Vadodara

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

ITA 2033/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblehitendrakumar Thakorbhai Income Tax Officer, Vs. Patel, Ward-3(1)(5), Darwaja Khadki, Vadodara. At Simli, Post Simli Talkarjan, Vadodara-391244. [Pan :Arupp0754 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Krutarth K Desai, Ar Respondent By: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth K Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR

Section 69A

entire bank deposit represent Income which has not been taxed. If the findings of the learned AO is believed then the addition amounts to double taxation which is against the taxation jurisprudence and therefore same is required to be deleted. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition

Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandir, Hingolie, Hingoli vs. DCIT, Cir-Aurangabad, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1531/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1531/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Vs Dcit Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, 01 Exemption Akola Road, Hingoli S.O Circle, Basamba, Hingoli-431513 Aurangabad Maharashtra Pan-Aabtd5118M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 250(6)

stand-alone basis without granting deduction of expenses relating to activity of Appellant. Appellant contends that such a one-sided process leads to double taxation. 7. On an alternative and without prejudice basis, the appellant contends that the interest income was only Rs. 27,10,000 whereas, addition made / confirmed

Ksb Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical

ITA 1028/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistri a/w. Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das - CIT DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250

amount of advances received during the year under consideration and which have been already invoiced and accounted as income during the year. Double taxation 7. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that out of the total advances of Rs.143.32 crores outstanding ... subsequent years. Therefore, bringing the entire amount of Rs.143.32 crores to tax in the year under consideration has resulted into a double taxation of such sum, which the learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have directed to be deleted in subsequent respective years. Addition made on gross basis without allowing

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 5035/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Circle 10 (1), Vs. M/S. Interglobe Aviation Limited, New Delhi. Upper Ground Floor, Gate No.2, Western Wing, Thapar House, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aabci2726B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nagesh Behl, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl./Jcit (Appeals)-5, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Jcit (A)] Dated 30.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2019-20 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Addl./Jcit (A) Is Correct In Holding That The Contention Of The Assesses Is Factual & Evident From Record W.R.T. The Disallowance U/S 37 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.11,05,60,134/- (Rs.38,48,85,884/- - Rs.27,43,25,750)

For Appellant: Shri Nagesh Behl, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 37

already been offered to tax in the computation of income while filing the return of income and this amounts to double taxation. He submitted that JCIT (A) should have asked for the relevant details or reconciliation from the assessee. He strongly objected to the findings of the ld. JCIT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Muzaffarpur vs. Nandkumar Prasad Sah, Saraiyganj Road, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 248/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

taxable in view of the benefit of telescoping, both income and its application cannot be added twice, as it would amount to double taxation. The theory of telescoping is common in Income tax assessment proceedings particulars in search assessment. The reply of the assessee has been examined on the basis ... again in view of the benefit of telescoping as both income and its application cannot be added twice as it would amount to double taxation. However, the theory of telescoping can be applied only where the income shown in the returns filed subsequent to the search for earlier assessment years

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3319/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3318/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3319/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Chinnarasu Veeramani बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 43A, Gandhi Road, Edayampatti Chennai. Chonnaakodiyur Village, Vs. Jolarpet-638 851 (Tn) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adkpv-3559-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas (Cit) – Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishna (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 [Cit(A)] On 17-10-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &

Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

amount brought to tax in the hands of Shri. C Arun Prasad and making this addition again the hands of the assessee tantamount to double taxation which is against the principles of taxation. Therefore, in the absence of any direct evidence linking the assessee to the alleged payments, making ... addition could be made in the hands of the assessee in AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 since the same would tantamount to double taxation which is impermissible. We order so. This issue has correctly been considered by Ld. CIT(A) and we see no reason to interfere

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3318/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &

Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3317/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &

Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2844/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

shareholder ERGO International AG, a tax resident of Germany, and the rate of 10% being the rate under Article 10 of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 7. The CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to grant interest under section 244A of the Act amounting ... present appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) levied under Section 115-O is subject to the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), and in this case, the India-Germany DTAA would apply. It was contended that, in view of Article

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2843/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

shareholder ERGO International AG, a tax resident of Germany, and the rate of 10% being the rate under Article 10 of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 7. The CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to grant interest under Section 244A of the Act amounting ... present appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) levied under Section 115-O is subject to the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), and in this case, the India-Germany DTAA would apply. It was contended that, in view of Article

Bir Babu Pandey, Gopalganj vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Siwan

ITA 223/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 40Section 69A

sales and purchases of the appellant have not been disputed. Therefore, the addition of the same would result in double taxation of income. The Ld. AR has also submitted the copy of VAT return for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, cash books from 01.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 and extracts

Sivakarthick Raman, Madurai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 281/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:281/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sivakarthick Raman, The Assistant Commissioner Of 5/200, 2Nd Street, Alagupillai Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, T.Pudukudi, International Taxation Circle, Achampathu, Madurai. Madurai – 625 019. [Pan: Ajnpr-3214-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 15Section 15(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234DSection 5(2)Section 5(2)(a)Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

against the Appellant for AY 2022-23 disallowing the exemption of INR 1,53,65,359 claimed under Article 15(1) of India-China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') read with Section 90 of the Act in respect of the salary income received in India for services rendered in China ... assessee qualified as Tax Resident of China for the Calendar Year (‘CY’) 2021 and 2022 as per Article 4(1) of India- China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) extracted as under: :-4-: ITA. No.:281/Chny/2025 “For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "resident of a Contracting State" means

ACIT-3, Lucknow vs. Harshit Garg, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

ITA 451/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Acit, Lucknow Vs. Harshit Garg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57-Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.25/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Harshit Garg, Vs. Acit, Lucknow Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 17.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 68

sale bills, VAT return, and also examined the books of account, the addition made for SBN notes by the Learned Assessing Officer amounts to double taxation of same receipt. 2(b). That the addition made u/s 68 for SBN notes deposited is bad in law. 2 CO No.25/LKW/2024 Harshit Garg ... which had also increased substantially during the period and due to the additions made by the ld. AO, the assessee was being subjected to double taxation as he had already offered the sale proceeds for taxation under the Income Tax Act. The assessee thereafter placed reliance on various case laws

Ashok Kumar Kushwaha, Lucknow vs. ITO-6 (I), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 345/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashok Kumar Kushwaha V. The Income Tax Officer 6(1) 557/27G/6, Om Nagar Lucknow - New Alambagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aqbpk1644F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jagdish Prasad, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 270ASection 44ASection 68

Current Account with the ITA No.345/LKW/2024 Page 8 of 11 bank having been duly reflected. It was also submitted that, thus, there was double taxation of the entire gross business receipts, because earlier the assessee had already declared a net profit of Rs.2,56,350/- and subsequently the same receipts ... audited profit and loss account and, thus, charging the same receipts again to tax @ 8% is a clear case of double taxation. Although, the AO has rejected the books of account, the reason again for rejection of books of account was non-compliance on the part of the assessee

Income Tax Officer Ward-5 Yamuna Nagar, Yamuna Nagar vs. Shivalik Filling Station, Khizrabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 960/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250Section 42Section 69A

taxed in the hands of the correct legal entity, and any further 4 addition in the hands of a dissolved firm would lead to double taxation of the same income, which is not permissible under law. 5.6 In support, reliance was placed on several judicial precedents including PCIT v. Maruti ... same income again in the hands of a legally dissolved firm, merely on the basis of a technical mismatch in PAN, would amount to double taxation, which is neither warranted nor permissible under law. 7.1 Further, initiation and completion of reassessment against a non- existent entity is a jurisdictional defect