← 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

Shell International Petroeum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5509/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

purchases of computer software from the residents of Denmark and Finland. It was observed that such purchases would fall within the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") entered between India and these countries. The Tribunal also observed that a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3053/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

purchases of computer software from the residents of Denmark and Finland. It was observed that such purchases would fall within the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") entered between India and these countries. The Tribunal also observed that a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3049/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

purchases of computer software from the residents of Denmark and Finland. It was observed that such purchases would fall within the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") entered between India and these countries. The Tribunal also observed that a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saurer Embroidery Systems India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3508/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142Section 145(3)Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the additions u/s 69A would tantamount to double taxation which in law is impermissible. 8 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed

Goutam Kumar Ranka, Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1487/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR (Thru” VC)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 156Section 226(3)

being value of alleged undisclosed excess stock found during the course of search proceedings in the appellant’s case has resulted in double taxation as the appellant had duly accounted the purchase of impugned stock in his books of accounts alomngwith the corresponding sales and duly offered the profits resulting

Visteon Corporation, Michigan vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1347/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1347/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S. Visteon Corporation Dcit बनाम/ Grace Lake Corporation Centre, International Taxation Van Buren Township Circle-2(2), Vs. Michigan – 48111 Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aadcv-5660-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Jyotsna Sivakumar (Advocate) & Shri Ajay Vohra (Senior Advocate) – Ld. Ars (Through Virtual Mode ) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Jyotsna Sivakumar (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vii)

substantive grievance of the assessee is assessment of Rs.44.42 Crores as fees for included services (FIS) as per Article 12(4) of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 2. The Ld. Sr. Counsel. Shri Ajay Vohra, at the outset, stated that the impugned issue is covered in assessee

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Haresh Chhotalal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

income as per the return filed u/s 148 of the Act, the Ld. A.O. has made the addition of the same income amounts to double taxation. Haresh Chhotalal Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– [iii] Also the appellant submits that the profit of the Hemo Organics Ltd. penny stock

Niral Krupeshbhaipatel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed subject to the aforesaid aforesaid verification

ITA 962/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushi Patel, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 40

there was no question of offering such interest income in the hands of the assessee, since this would amount to double taxation. On receipt of notice dated 03.05.2018, the assessee filed revised return of income on 26.05.2018, including interest income of Rs. 59,08,339/- received from M/s. Neptune Associates ... Associates, then the question of considering the same as income of the assessee does not arise at all, since the same would amount to double taxation. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in not considering that such interest income

Mukesh K. Mulchandani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 707/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.707/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15) बनाम/ Mukesh Kevalram The Income Tax Mulchandani Officer Vs. A-137,Sarboday Nagar Soc. Ward-4(2)(3) (No.2) Ahmedabad–380 015 Sola Road,Ghatlodia Ahmedabad – 380 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aewpm 4974 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 22/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25 /02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Appellate Order Dated 14/08/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2014-15 On 18/10/2014 Mukesh K. Mulchandani Vs. Ito Asst.Year - 2014-15 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,64,710/-. The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor & Doing Business In The Name Of Proprietary- Concern, M/S.M.K. Builders. Regular Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 24/11/2016 Assessing Total Income At Rs.8,69,220/-. The Assessment Was Revised U/S.263 Of The Act To Make Addition Of Rs.80 Lakhs On Account Of Unexplained Credit In The Books Of The Assessee As ‘Advance’ Received. Another Addition Of Rs.24,03,750/- Was Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Credit As Per Form 26-As.

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

ought to have considered fact that contractual income of party from whom mobilization advance received have been booked subsequently and accordingly it results into double taxation of same income. Mukesh K. Mulchandani vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2014-15 4. Ld.NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming action ... contract receipt of Rs.24,03,750/- as unexplained credit ignoring fact that appellant booked same in A.Y. 2015-16 and it results into double taxation of same income. 5. Ld.NFAC ought to have gave direction to avoid double taxation of same income. 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271

Shailesh K. Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-19(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 121/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Shailesh K. Kothari, Income-Tax Officer, Ward- F/641, Lbs Marg, 19(3)(5), Garden Court Building, Mumbai Vs. Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai – 400 086

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

though such sum is a part of sales consideration already brought to tax of Rs.35,13,615, thereby resulting into double taxation.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee did not file his return of income. Case was taken up u/s.147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s.148

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4385/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

Central Government with the Government of any country outside India for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, provides that any income of a resident of India "may be taxed" in the other country, such income shall be included in his total income ... Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and relief shall be granted in accordance with the method for elimination or avoidance of double taxation provided in such agreement. 11. The effect of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Kulandagan Chettiar's case (supra) thus was clearly overruled

Grasim Industries Ltd ( Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

Central Government with the Government of any country outside India for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, provides that any income of a resident of India "may be taxed" in the other country, such income shall be included in his total income ... Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and relief shall be granted in accordance with the method for elimination or avoidance of double taxation provided in such agreement. 11. The effect of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Kulandagan Chettiar's case (supra) thus was clearly overruled

Hindvee Small Finance Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Jammu, Jammu

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

ITA 215/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Moolchandani, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

formed a part of the total income subjected to taxation , and taxing the same again u/s 68 of the Act 61 , will lead to double taxation, and he prays for deleting the addition of Rs.50. 90 lakhs, sustained u/s 68 of the Act by the Ld first appellate authority

Omprakash Jaiswal, Indore vs. ACIT-1(1), Indore

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 443/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 68

accumulated from very same sales as “undisclosed income”. This has Page 10 of 18 Omprakash Jaiswal ITA No. 443/Ind/2024 - AY 2017-18 resulted in double taxation of same transactions/income in two different ways, which is not tenable. Ld. AR relied upon decision of ITAT, Amritsar in Raj Kumar ... taxed sales as disclosed income, taxing the cash-deposits made out of such sales in bank a/c as undisclosed income results in double taxation which cannot happen, is supported by decision of Raj Kumar (supra). In principle, we agree with these views taken by judicial forums. However, when it comes

Sandeep Kumar Soni, Bhopal vs. The ITO 4(3), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed

ITA 82/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni ITA No.82/Ind/2023- AY 2017-18 When it is so, the impugned addition made by AO has resulted in double taxation which is not sustainable. To support his stand, Ld. AR relied upon ACIT Vs. Dewas Soya Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 336/Ind/2012], a decision given by ITAT ... Indore holding as under: “6.20 The claim of the appellant that such addition resulted into double taxation of the same income in the same year is also acceptable because on one hand cost of the sales has been taxed (after deducting gross profit from same price ultimately credited to profit

Shri Deepak Soni, Bhyopal vs. The ITO 4 (3), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni ITA No.82/Ind/2023- AY 2017-18 When it is so, the impugned addition made by AO has resulted in double taxation which is not sustainable. To support his stand, Ld. AR relied upon ACIT Vs. Dewas Soya Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 336/Ind/2012], a decision given by ITAT ... Indore holding as under: “6.20 The claim of the appellant that such addition resulted into double taxation of the same income in the same year is also acceptable because on one hand cost of the sales has been taxed (after deducting gross profit from same price ultimately credited to profit

Arpit Kumar Tomar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Lucknow

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

ITA 250/LKW/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Arpit Kumar Tomar Income Tax Officer V. Flat No.B3, B21, Krishna 6(1), Lucknow, Uttar Garden, Sadarpur, Ghaziabad, Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh-201021. Pan:Ajbpt8004B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. Balaji, Fca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V. Balaji, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

well as the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to Section 90 of the Act, read with Article 23 of the India Denmark Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ((DTAA’), read with Circular 333 dated 2nd April 1982, read with various orders of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal including the following ... lower authorities is contrary to the provisions embodied in Section 90 of the Act, read with Article 23 of the India Denmark Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). He further Page 3 of 14 submitted that the CBDT Circular No. 333 dated 2nd April, 1982 and other decisions

Kailash Brick Traders, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Ropar, Punjab

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1020/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing Number Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1067258373(1) Dated 02/08/2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Act. Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2016 To 31/03/2017. 2 2. Factual Matrix

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal, C.A Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68Section 69

factual matrix wherein the Assessee has self-assessed income against PAN-AAEFK9376R after duly considering all credits'' 2. Whether the impugned order results in double taxation and is in violation of article 265 of the constitution of India.' 3. Whether service of notice under section ... being sales hence addition made by Ld. AO and sustained by CIT(A) are all wrong as it amounts to double taxation. The addition of Rs. 2,05,320/- is too challenged as same stands offered for tax. In sum and substance it is contended that entire amount

DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Punjab Wool Traders, Ludhiana

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 960/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 960/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, M/S Punjab Wool Traders, बनाम Central Circle-1, 6515/14, Haibowal, Ludhiana Jassian Road, Vs. Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aanfp9513G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr (Virtual) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.04.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153C

Punjab Wool Traders, Ludhiana 11 protective basis in the hands of M/s Punjab Wool Traders, Ludhiana as it would BE tantamount to double taxation of the same amount. Accordingly, we are of this considered view that this protective addition of Rs. 2 crore s in the hands of Punjab Wool