← 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

M/S. Sanklecha Constructions, Nashik vs. The Income Tax Officer, ITO(TDS), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1265/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1265/Pun/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Sanklecha Constructions, V The Income Tax Officer, 11, Op. Of Kalika Park, Agra S. Ito(Tds), Nashik. Road, District Nashik, Nashik – 422002. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaffs1432H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte– Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Hyderabad Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16, Dated 28.03.2025 Emanating From Order U/S.201 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 156Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

considered the interest paid by the appellant in its return of income, having regards to the facts of the case and to avoid double taxation. 6. The appellant craves for the addition to, deletion, alteration, modification of the above grounds of appeal.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the Assessee

Ganapathy Panneerselvam, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corp. Ward 19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 609/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:609/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganapathy Panneerselvam, The Income Tax Officer, Old No.19, New No.49, Vs. Non-Corp. Ward -19(4), Chetty Street, Chennai. Saidapet West, Chennai – 600 015. [Pan:Bikpp-3640-L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. & Shri. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

treated as unexplained income. According to the ld. AR, the Assessing Officer’s action in taxing the re-deposited amount effectively results in double taxation of income that has already been assessed, which is unjustified and contrary to law. 15. The ld. AR, referring to page 22 of the order

Hapag Liyod Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 1738/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanhapag-Llyod Aktiengesellschaft Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Hapag-Lloyd India Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax International Tax 501 Satellite Gazebo, B Wing, 5Th Circle-2(2)(2) Floor, Guru Hargovindji Marg, Room No.1606, 16Th Floor, Air Andheri East, Mumbai-400993 India Building, Nariman Point, Pan – Aaach0979G Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal:- Non-Grant of Relief under Article 8 of the India Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ['India - Germany DTAA'] 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') based on the directions ... earned by assessee from transportation of cargo through feeder vessels is also eligible for benefit of Article 8 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty between India and Germany. 022. In view of our decision in ground number 2 – 4 of the appeal, no adjudication is required on ground number

Ayesha Steels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2563/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Ayesha Steels (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), F-319, Old Seema Puri, Civic Centre, Delhi Delhi – 110 095 (Pan: Aafca7445K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

without considering that the amount has already been offered under sales by the 4 | P a g e assessee and hence there cannot be double taxation, without considering that before making addition the books of account of the assessee has not been rejected and not appreciating that the entire addition

ITO, Ward 43(6), Delhi vs. Ankur Jain, Delhi

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3305/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Ito, Ward 43(6), Vs. Ankur Jain, New Delhi Bh-4, Delhi East, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (Pan: Adkpj1885H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 11SSection 68Section 69A

allowance). In fact, it is reiterated that the treatment of the cash deposits as unexplained money U/s 69A by the A.O has resulted in double taxation of the same amount, once in the form of cash sales already offered to tax by the appellant at the rate of tax applicable ... contention of the appellant that the cash was deposited out of cash sales has not been controverted. Thus, the impugned addition has resulted in double taxation of the same amount, once in the form of cash sales already offered to tax by the appellant at the rate of tax applicable

Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1966 और 1967/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Kunal Pandey, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Prajna Paramita, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 80I

dividend distribution tax on the dividend distributed/ paid to Guardian International Corporation, to 15 percent in terms of Article 10(2) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA instead of 16.995% charged in terms of section 115-0 of the Act." 3 ITA Nos.1819, 1966 & 1967/DEL/2018 (A.Y.2013-14

Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1966/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1966 और 1967/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Kunal Pandey, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Prajna Paramita, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 80I

dividend distribution tax on the dividend distributed/ paid to Guardian International Corporation, to 15 percent in terms of Article 10(2) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA instead of 16.995% charged in terms of section 115-0 of the Act." 3 ITA Nos.1819, 1966 & 1967/DEL/2018 (A.Y.2013-14

ACIT, Circle-10(2), New Delhi vs. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1819/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1966 और 1967/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Kunal Pandey, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Prajna Paramita, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 80I

dividend distribution tax on the dividend distributed/ paid to Guardian International Corporation, to 15 percent in terms of Article 10(2) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA instead of 16.995% charged in terms of section 115-0 of the Act." 3 ITA Nos.1819, 1966 & 1967/DEL/2018 (A.Y.2013-14

Dinesh Damodar Shukla, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 891/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

either under the head "Income from Capital Gains" or under the head "Income from Other Sources"; as such the said addition is leading to double taxation. 2 Dinesh Damodar Shukla 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs.1,06,586/- being Interest

DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Kkalpana Industries India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate and Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45

withholding certificate issued by the DDIT Circle 1 (2) of the International Tax Division in favour of the Assessee in terms of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA 2 between the India and the USA, there was no need for the Assessee to charge tax or withhold tax under Section

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2129/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora; Shri Lekh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 244ASection 44B

declaring total income of INR.121,40,15,240/- after claiming the benefit of the Article 8 of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Honk Kong SAR (for short `Tax Treaty'] read with Section 90(2) and Section 44B of the Act in respect of the income

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) - Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1092/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9(1)(i)

Shared Services India Private Limited (RGA Services) constitutes a fixed place permanent establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5(1) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India and Ireland (India-Ireland Tax Treaty). 5. Ground 5 The learned AO has, on the facts and circumstances ... Services only acts as interface between Indian Cedents and assessee.  Even otherwise this aspect is wholly irrelevant since in a case in which a double taxation avoidance agreement comes into play, such as the present case, the provisions of the Act cannot be pressed into service unless these provisions

Emerging India Focus Funds, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 1963/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

treaties are not the same as those in interpretation of statutory legislation. The interpretation of provisions of an international treaty, including one for double taxation relief, is that the treaties are entered into at a political level and have several considerations as their bases

Income Tax Officer, C.R. Building vs. Aneesh Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Income Tax Officer Aneesh Jewellers Pvt Ltd. 375, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vs. 2691, Shop No.12, Gf, New Delhi. Diamond Mall Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Pan No. Aafca4265K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 68

submitted that the cash deposits which has- already declared in the return of income as part of total sales and that it amounts to double taxation of the same amount. It was further submitted that even assuming that the additions were warranted under section ... submitted that the cash deposits which has already declared in the return of income as part of total sales and that it amounts to double taxation of the same amount. It was further submitted that even assuming that the additions were warranted under section

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun-New Creations and Marketign Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royito, Ward 24(1) Vs. M/S Sun New Creations New Delhi & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 59/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) M/S Sun New Creations Vs. Ito, Ward 24(1) & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Creations and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) declared in the profit and loss account and any further addition which tantamount double taxation of the same income. Accordingly, we hold that the additions has been rightly deleted. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 9. The appeal of the revenue

Sita Devi Choudhary, Ahore Jalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalore

In the result, stands allowed

ITA 115/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Cit(A) Challenging The Additions Made By The Ao. The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld Both The Additions Made By Observing-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

disregarded these crucial evidences. We may also mention that treating cash deposits from “business income” as “unexplained” can lead to double taxation. We find that the assessee had declared a turnover of ₹10,72,96,154/- with a net profit of 0.82%, and the cash deposits in the assessee

J K Traders, Thiruchendur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tuticorin

ITA 566/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Veerabathran Prasanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(1)(a)Section 250Section 5Section 69A

learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that addition of the sales amount already admitted as sales again under section 69A would amount to double taxation of the same amount. 7. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that no addition under section 69A could be made without rejecting

Income Tax Officer, C.R. Building vs. Fashion Factory (International) Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

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

ITA 4974/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sureder Kumar Jatav, Sr DR
Section 143(1)Section 295Section 90

credit for foreign taxes. Article 22(2) is relevant in the present context. (PB 27-41) Same is extracted below: “2. In India double taxation shall be eliminated as follows: Where a resident of India derives income which, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, may be taxed

Intertek India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4660/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT- DR
Section 115Section 237

Para No. 77) h) DDT is a tax not on the shareholder but on the income of the company and thus, there is no double taxation and thus, DTAA does not apply (Para No. 79 & 80) i) If domestic company has to enter the domain of DTAA, the countries should ... declared, distributed, paid as the case may be, by way of dividend and being a tax on income of the company, there is no double taxation of the same income. DTAAs seek to reduce the impact of double taxation which has harmful ITA No. 4660/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2019-20] Intertek India

Cheruvathur Foundation, Kochi vs. ACIT, Exemption Circle, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1063/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cheruvathur Foundation .......... Appellant Hig 5, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aabtc0724E] Vs. Acit (Exemptions), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Chennai, Dated 23.10.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Charitable Trust Found With The Object Of Imparting Education. It Is Duly Registered U/S. 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Appellant Trust Filed Return Of Income For 2014-15 On 31.03.2015 Disclosing Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S. 11 Of The Act. In 2 Cheruvathur Foundation The Return Of Income The Appellant Claimed The Amount Spent On Acquisition Of Fixed Assets & Repayment Of Loans To Bank As Application Of Income. The Said Return Of Income Was Processed By The Cpc Vide Intimation Dated 16.03.2016 By Making Adjustment Of The Cost Of Fixed Assets Of Rs. 1,25,20.205/- & Repayment Of Loans Of Rs. 4,68,87,408/- By Not Allowing As Application Of Income. Being Aggrieved By The Said Intimation, An Application U/S. 154 Of The Act Was Filed Before The Cpc. The Intimation Was Amended By Allowing The Cost Of Asset As An Application Of Income & Confirmed The Adjustment Of Repayment Of Loan Of Rs. 4,68,87,408/- & Also Not Allowed Carry Forward Of Excess Amount Spent In Earlier Years.

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO by holding that it amounts to double taxation. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that