← 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

ITO, Ward-6(1), Mohali vs. Quarkcity India Pvt. Ltd., Mohali

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

ITA 258/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Para 5 of the Assessment Order hence the same cannot be again adjudicated separately as this will result into double taxation." 8.4. As discussed in para 5.2, it is clear that the AO did not raise any dispute or objections with regard to audited books of accounts or the specific

Vijakumar Jagannath Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Office, Guj-C-1-104, Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1985/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1985/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vijaykumar Jagannath The Income Tax Office Agarwal बनाम / Gujarat C-1-104 V/S. B-79, Sumel Business Park Circle-2(1)(1) Behind New Cloth Market Ahmedabad - 380 015 Ahmedabad – 380 002 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aazpa 8345 В (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mitul A. Ruparayl, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Dated 27/09/2024, For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18, Wherein The Cit(A) Upheld The Addition Of Rs.30,26,460/- Made By The Assessing Officer (“Ao") Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act"). 2. Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Raised By The Assessee Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri Mitul A. Ruparayl, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 69A

Year: 2017-18 4 accounts, cash ledger, and bank statements without pointing out any discrepancies therefore adding cash deposits as unexplained money results in double taxation, as the same amount has already been included as sales in the profit & loss account. The AR further contended that the customers of assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Arunai Motor Finance, Karur

In the result, both the appeals raised by the Revenue vide ITA

ITA 2291/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2116 /Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2291 /Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2020-21 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Arunai Motor Finance, Company Circle-2(1) No.326(895), First Floor, Trichy. Jawahar Bazaar, Opp. To Taluk Office, Karur Tamil Nadu-639 001. [Pan: Aazfa7179B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R.Venkata Raman, C.A & Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.Nantha Kumar, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman, C.A & ShriFor Respondent: Shri G.Nantha Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

reconstructing the books of account and furnishing a cash flow statement requires to 6.3.14 The taxing of the same income again amounts to double taxation, admitted by the Appellant in the return of income filed in response to the notice (s) u/s 153A of the Act for the years under ... contemplated over and above the amounts admitted are only a hypothetical income and not real income of the Appellant Firm. Thus, the AO's double taxation of the same income is unjustified and therefore requires to be deleted. Further the invocation of Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Arunai Motor Finance, Karur

In the result, both the appeals raised by the Revenue vide ITA

ITA 2116/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

reconstructing the books of account and furnishing a cash flow statement requires to 6.3.14 The taxing of the same income again amounts to double taxation, admitted by the Appellant in the return of income filed in response to the notice (s) u/s 153A of the Act for the years under ... contemplated over and above the amounts admitted are only a hypothetical income and not real income of the Appellant Firm. Thus, the AO's double taxation of the same income is unjustified and therefore requires to be deleted. Further the invocation of Section

Gateway Office Parks Priovate Limitedi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Cicle-6(1), Chennai

ITA 617/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.617/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2015-16 Gateway Office Parks Private Limited, Block No.A6, Ground Floor, No.16, Gst Road, Perungalathur, Chennai-600 063. [Pan: Aajcs8198P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri S.Ananthan, Advocate (Virtual). Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit 22.01.2025 19.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/M/250/2022-23/1050825008(1) Dated 16.03.2023 For The Assessment Years 2015-16. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 16.03.2023 Passed By Cit(A), Chennai. 2.0 Ground Of Appeal No.1 Has Been Found To Be General In Nature & Hence Not Worthy Of Any Meritorious Adjudication.

Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, "ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Sony Music Entertainment India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Mumbai

ITA 3383/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain
Section 115Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 250

National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘CIT (A)’] has erred in not granting the benefit of the rate prescribed in Article 10 of the India Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) read with the Most Favoured Nation (‘MFN’) clause with respect to Article 10 of India-Slovenia DTAA in determining the dividend ... Netherlands, on which DDT of INR.3,50,59,965/- was paid under Section 115-O of the Act. Placing reliance on the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Netherlands, the Appellant claimed that DDT was paid at a higher rate and therefore, sought refund of excess

Mustansir Moiz Boriawala, United Arab Emirates vs. Income Tax Officer (International Tax), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1899/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Zaveri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 250Section 68

Therefore, the addition, if any, to be made on account of capital gains after considering the purchase price, would amount to double taxation i.e. once as per form 26AS and again as per capital gains and therefore the Hon’ble Court is requested to struck off the incorrect addition

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 390/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Completion Method by the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 vide his order dt. 31.01.2024, Appeal No. CIT (A), Udaipur - 2/10315/2017-18 (DC 89-91). 20. Double taxation not permissible, again, it is not denied that the assessee had already offered to Tax the income earned from the project “Aashirvad Gokul ... disturbing the declared income this year, taxed the entire advance of Rs. 3, 71, 74,468/- in this year which has clearly resulted into double taxation. The law is well settled that the same income cannot be taxed twice as held in the case of Mahaveer Kumar Jain

Kaizen Entreprises Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. ACIT-DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 156/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Completion Method by the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 vide his order dt. 31.01.2024, Appeal No. CIT (A), Udaipur - 2/10315/2017-18 (DC 89-91). 20. Double taxation not permissible, again, it is not denied that the assessee had already offered to Tax the income earned from the project “Aashirvad Gokul ... disturbing the declared income this year, taxed the entire advance of Rs. 3, 71, 74,468/- in this year which has clearly resulted into double taxation. The law is well settled that the same income cannot be taxed twice as held in the case of Mahaveer Kumar Jain

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1184/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

accrued/notional interest. Indisputably, the addition on the basis of cash system as well as on the basis of mercantile system, will result in double taxation. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and given relief to the assessee in this respect

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1155/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

accrued/notional interest. Indisputably, the addition on the basis of cash system as well as on the basis of mercantile system, will result in double taxation. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and given relief to the assessee in this respect

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1154/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1153/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1152/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1151/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1150/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

accrued/notional interest. Indisputably, the addition on the basis of cash system as well as on the basis of mercantile system, will result in double taxation. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and given relief to the assessee in this respect

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1149/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1148/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

accrued/notional interest. Indisputably, the addition on the basis of cash system as well as on the basis of mercantile system, will result in double taxation. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and given relief to the assessee in this respect

Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT CC 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1146/AHD/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

accrued/notional interest. Indisputably, the addition on the basis of cash system as well as on the basis of mercantile system, will result in double taxation. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and given relief to the assessee in this respect

Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT CC (1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1145/AHD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA