← 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

Ab Sciex Pte. Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 804/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44B

India. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that it did not have any PE in India under Article 5 of India – Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Further, it was submitted, receipts from routine maintenance services provided to Indian customers are not subject to tax in India. The assessee submitted

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Consulting Engineering Services (India) Private Limited, New Delhi

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

ITA 4091/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit, Vs. Consulting Engineering Circle-4(2), Services (India) Pvt. Ltd, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 184, Platinum New Delhi Tower, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc5110G Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Shri Tarun Chanana, Adv Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, CIT DR
Section 127Section 142Section 143(3)Section 250

being interest recoverable from Cee-Ess Development Consultants (P) Ltd. for tax in AY 2010-11 and such confirmation of addition has resulted in double taxation of the said sum. Therefore, it is not justified on the part of Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the aforesaid addition. GROUND ... That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the confirmation of addition of Rs. 2,86,86,731/- has resulted in double taxation. Therefore, it is not justified on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the aforesaid addition. GROUND 5 5.1 That

Harkiran Commar, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-10, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalpr. Commissioner Of Mrs. Harkiran Commar Income Tax-10, 28, Poorvi Marg, Vs. New Delhi Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Pan: Aagpc2911C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sanjiv Chaudhary, Ca Sh. Anil Chopra, Ca & Sh. Praveen Kumar, Ca Department By Sh. Surender Pal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 50CSection 54Section 54F

assessee has failed to make investment as per law, therefore, if any further addition/disallowance is made in the year under appeal it would be double taxation. Thus, this issue does not service for consideration at this stage. 10. With regard to the second issue of application of provisions of section

Thenraj, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

ITA 3123/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleshri Thenraj, The Income Tax Officer, Chennai Sun Power, Non-Corporate Ward 8(2) No.17/3, Erikarai Street, Chennai. Nerkundram, Chennai- 600107. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) [Pan:Adlpt-9671-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Dated 15.10.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 69Section 69A

opinion that when the sale has been reflected in the books of accounts and offered to tax, adding the same again would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. The cash sales made by the assessee have been credited in the books of accounts and the same form

DCIT(It)-3(2)(1), Income Tax Department International Taxation vs. Maquet Critical Care Ab, Sweden

Accordingly, the appeals must be dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 5099/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 271C

otherwise is under question, or ii. Appeals of International taxation charges where the dispute relates to the applicability of the provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement or otherwise m. Any other case or class of cases where in the opinion of the Board it is necessary to contest

ACIT(It) 3 2 1 Mumbai, Income Tax Department International Taxation vs. Maquet Critical Care Ab, Sweden

Accordingly, the appeals must be dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 5096/MUM/2024[2016 17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 271C

otherwise is under question, or ii. Appeals of International taxation charges where the dispute relates to the applicability of the provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement or otherwise m. Any other case or class of cases where in the opinion of the Board it is necessary to contest

ACIT(It)3-2-1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Maquet Critical Care Ab, Sweden

Accordingly, the appeals must be dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 5095/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 271C

otherwise is under question, or ii. Appeals of International taxation charges where the dispute relates to the applicability of the provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement or otherwise m. Any other case or class of cases where in the opinion of the Board it is necessary to contest

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbaitax, Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 5091/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2019-20
Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

India-UK DTAA. The relevant observations of the ld. CIT (A) are as under : “12. Comparing Article 11(3) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with the detailed breakup reproduced above form basis for decision. Article 11(3) has several parts and we have to focus whether the payment ... plain reading of the break up of each expenses, worst come worst, vis-a-vis multiple aspects in Article 11(3) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, leads to the fact that the payment is for information concerned commercial experience.” 5.i Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) after incorporating the submissions

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 5089/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2019-20
Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

India-UK DTAA. The relevant observations of the ld. CIT (A) are as under : “12. Comparing Article 11(3) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with the detailed breakup reproduced above form basis for decision. Article 11(3) has several parts and we have to focus 9 ITA No.5089/Mum/2024 and others ... plain reading of the break up of each expenses, worst come worst, vis-a-vis multiple aspects in Article 11(3) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, leads to the fact that the payment is for information concerned commercial experience.” 5.i Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) after incorporating the submissions

Pukhraj Kundanmal Shah, Jodhpur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 133ASection 145(3)

erred in upholding the taxing of the declared cash sales again in the garb of cash deposit into Bank account which amounts to double taxation and is thus bad in law. 13. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in concluding that the legitimate cash in hand

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Nashik vs. Rajendra Rasiklal Shah, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1015/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 53Section 54

same in their income- tax returns and financial statements, therefore, taxing the said profit again in the hands of assessee shall tantamount to double taxation of the same income. 4. Aggrieved Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal by raising the following grounds : “1. Whether on the facts ... granting relief to the assessee and taking the unassessed income of Rs.15,13,95,000/- out of the tax net citing double taxation in the hands of the assessee when there is no clear evidence as to the fact that the intermediary parties have offered any income

Timirbaran Mazumder, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle 2(1), International Taxation, Kolkata

The appeal are allowed

ITA 1905/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 90

DTAA override the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the relevant extract of Article 25 of the AGREEMENT FOR AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION OF INCOME WITH USA (DTAA) issued vide Notification: No. GSR 992(E), dated 20-12- 1990, which is also discussed in the case of Sukhdev ... Singh Bindra (supra) is once again reproduced as under: Page 12 I.T.A. No.: 1905/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Timirbaran Mazumder. "ARTICLE 25 RELIEF FROM DOUBLE TAXATION 1. In accordance with the provisions and subject to the limitations of the law of the United States (as it may be amended from

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai vs. Vijaylaxmi Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 719/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Hon'ble Jaipur High Court?"

For Appellant: ShriRakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

that the assessee had already accounted for the sale consideration in the Profit & Loss Account and taxing the same amount again would lead to double taxation. It was further argued that if the entire sale transaction were to be treated as bogus, the corresponding net profit would consequently result ... would then be tax neutral. Furthermore, once the assessee has duly disclosed the amount in the Profit & Loss Account, it cannot be subjected to double taxation. In view of the foregoing, we find that the impugned appellate order is well-reasoned and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the grounds

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. Vijaylaxmi Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 718/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Hon'ble Jaipur High Court?"

For Appellant: ShriRakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

that the assessee had already accounted for the sale consideration in the Profit & Loss Account and taxing the same amount again would lead to double taxation. It was further argued that if the entire sale transaction were to be treated as bogus, the corresponding net profit would consequently result ... would then be tax neutral. Furthermore, once the assessee has duly disclosed the amount in the Profit & Loss Account, it cannot be subjected to double taxation. In view of the foregoing, we find that the impugned appellate order is well-reasoned and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the grounds

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. Vijaylaxmi Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 520/MUM/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025

Bench: the Hon'ble Jaipur High Court?"

For Appellant: ShriRakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

that the assessee had already accounted for the sale consideration in the Profit & Loss Account and taxing the same amount again would lead to double taxation. It was further argued that if the entire sale transaction were to be treated as bogus, the corresponding net profit would consequently result ... would then be tax neutral. Furthermore, once the assessee has duly disclosed the amount in the Profit & Loss Account, it cannot be subjected to double taxation. In view of the foregoing, we find that the impugned appellate order is well-reasoned and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the grounds

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy-CIT (Int. Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

regards first question is concerned, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referring to para-1 to 3 under Article IIX-A of the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty with the Federal Germany Republic as per Notification dated 26th August 1985 held that the assessment of royalty or any fees for technical services ... confirmed at 20% of the commission income by the Hon'ble High Court and that making addition towards the same commission would amount to double taxation. For the year under consideration, the TP adjustment is deleted on the legal ground that the order of the TPO is time barred. Therefore

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT of Income Tax (Internationsl Taxation) -2(1) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

regards first question is concerned, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referring to para-1 to 3 under Article IIX-A of the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty with the Federal Germany Republic as per Notification dated 26th August 1985 held that the assessment of royalty or any fees for technical services ... confirmed at 20% of the commission income by the Hon'ble High Court and that making addition towards the same commission would amount to double taxation. For the year under consideration, the TP adjustment is deleted on the legal ground that the order of the TPO is time barred. Therefore

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Jt CIT (International Taxationa), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

regards first question is concerned, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referring to para-1 to 3 under Article IIX-A of the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty with the Federal Germany Republic as per Notification dated 26th August 1985 held that the assessment of royalty or any fees for technical services ... confirmed at 20% of the commission income by the Hon'ble High Court and that making addition towards the same commission would amount to double taxation. For the year under consideration, the TP adjustment is deleted on the legal ground that the order of the TPO is time barred. Therefore

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 458/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

regards first question is concerned, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referring to para-1 to 3 under Article IIX-A of the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty with the Federal Germany Republic as per Notification dated 26th August 1985 held that the assessment of royalty or any fees for technical services ... confirmed at 20% of the commission income by the Hon'ble High Court and that making addition towards the same commission would amount to double taxation. For the year under consideration, the TP adjustment is deleted on the legal ground that the order of the TPO is time barred. Therefore

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4652/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

regards first question is concerned, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referring to para-1 to 3 under Article IIX-A of the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty with the Federal Germany Republic as per Notification dated 26th August 1985 held that the assessment of royalty or any fees for technical services ... confirmed at 20% of the commission income by the Hon'ble High Court and that making addition towards the same commission would amount to double taxation. For the year under consideration, the TP adjustment is deleted on the legal ground that the order of the TPO is time barred. Therefore