← 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rhc Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2446/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Gsma Ltd., 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 450, Atalanta, Untied State Of America ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecg-1610-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(3)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri P.P Singh, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 06.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Issued Defect Memo Stating That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1076 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri P.P Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

considered opinion, in order to bring the alleged managerial services within the ambit of fees for technical services under the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, the services would have to satisfy the 'make available' test and such services should enable the person acquiring the services to apply the technology

Sh. Kuldeep Srivastava, Mathura vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(2), Mathura

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 227/AGR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(3)Section 257Section 68

also been assessed in its hand and, therefore, if any income is taxed in the hand of the assesse(appellant), it would amount to double taxation, it also not acceptable because it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamna Prasad Kahhaiya ... case of another assesse under section 68 of the Income Tax act. 3. Further, in a case of description, there was no question of double taxation. The situation was of the assessee’s own making getting false declaration filed in the names of the creditors with a view to avoid

Income Tax Officer ( International Taxation), Ward, Coimbatore vs. Gurusamy Sivasankar, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1548/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1548/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Gurusamy Sivasankar, (International Taxation Ward), Vs. 67, Karukkampalayam, Coimbatore. Unjalur Post, Kolathupalayam, Erode-638 152. [Pan: Cmops 4106F]

For Appellant: Shri J.Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90Section 92

hereinafter “the Act”) on 06.07.2022. :- 2 -: 2. The only ground of appeal in this appeal of Revenue is against directing the A.O to grant double taxation relief on the tax paid in respect of same income of the assessee taxed both India and Indonesia in the rectification order passed

Jagdish Kumar Arora, Bhawanimandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

Madras)/[2019] 418 ITR 442 (Madras) [26.03.2019], it is held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court as under:- x x x x No double taxation Such Additions of the unexplained investment declared by the Assessee during the course of search/survey does not amount to double taxation. [SVS Oil Mills

Springer Nature Technology and Publishing Solutions Private Limited, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune

The appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed for

ITA 418/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.418/Pun/2023 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Springer Nature Technology & Publishing Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Upper Ground Tower 8, Magarpatta City, Pune-411013. Pan: Aaccc8853E Appellant/ Assessee V The Assistant S Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement | 10/02/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac] For

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250

distinguishing the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd (supra) is factually incorrect Double taxation of interest income on short term deposits 4. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the double disallowance ... Income from Other Sources'; however he has not reduced the same from Income from Profits and Gains from Business or Profession', thereby resulting in double taxation. 1. 4. The following additions/disallowances have been made by the AO in the assessment order 2.1 In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that

The DCIT (Int.Taxa.), Vadodara vs. Shri Ajoy Kanaiyalal Khandheria, Vadodara

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

ITA 451/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Ward-3 V/S. Mandir Gandhinagar Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 144Section 147Section 148

taxability of the amounts received by the ultimate recipient in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 3. Ensure that there is no double taxation by cross verifying the assessments of the co-owners and reconciling their respective claims. 9.5. The AO shall provide the assessee with a fair opportunity

Shree Hari Enterprise, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 822/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194JSection 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद न्यायपीठ 'B' अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT

Zoho Corporation Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

ITA 2957/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

that country or specified territory, as the case may be, to promote mutual economic relations, trade and investment, or (b) for the avoidance of double taxation of income under this Act and under the corresponding law in force in that country or specified territory, as the case ... outside India, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more

Monika Rathore, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Morena

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

ITA 290/AGR/2024[MONIKA RATHORE]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 90

That appellant has duly complied with the provisions of Section 90/90A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Germany. The salary income earned for services rendered in Germany during the period from October 15, 2022, to March ... year 2023-24 has been correctly declared at Rs.53,51,596/- and the FTC of Rs.10,95,293 has been rightly claimed to avoid double taxation.” 3. The assessee filed her return of income for the impugned assessment year on 31.08.2023 in ITR-2, which is a belated return

Ankita Paliwal, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh

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

ITA 195/AGR/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 90

appreciating that not allowing credit of tax paid in USA on salary income received in USA would result in double taxation of income which is contrary to the provisions of the Act as also the treaty. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts ... dated 02/04/1982 has held that:- SECTION 90. AGREEMENT WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES [CORRESPONDING TO SECTION 40A OF THE 1922 ACT] 627. Specific provisions made in double taxation avoidance agreement Whether it would prevail over general provisions contained in Income- tax Act 1. It has come to the notice of the Board

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -2, Nagpur vs. Shri Rohan Jagdale, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 85/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee for the 7 ITA.No.85/NAG./2020 impugned assessment year and again taxing the sum falls under double taxation in the hands of the assessee and this proposition has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Devaraj Amrathraj, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 19(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2833/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2833/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. ,े यािचका सं../ S.P No.12/Chny/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2833/Chny/2024) (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Devaraj Amrathraj Dcit बनाम/ 3, Chakkrapani Second Lane, Non-Corporate Circle 19(1), Maduvankarai Street Chennai. Vs. Chennai – 600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Agopd-6915-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Murugappa Boopathy (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Murugappa Boopathy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

other source of income. Such cash collections form part of books of account of the assessee and adding the same again would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. Pertinently, no defect has been pointed out in the books of accounts. The assessee has furnished cash book which would show

ACIT Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2777/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailbank Of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ……………. Appellant Pan: Aaacb 1534 F V/S Acit, 2(1)(1), ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400051. Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1), Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400020. V/S Bank Of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra ……………. Respondent Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaacb 1534 F

For Appellant: Mr. C. NareshFor Respondent: Mr. Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to the exclusion of income of foreign branches situated in countries with whom India has entered into the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. ITA Nos. 1649 & 2777/M/2019 Bank of Baroda 8 10. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from ... Bahrain, Thailand, Australia, Mumbai (OBU), Mauritius, U.A.E, Oman, Belgium, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A., Mauritius, (OBU), China, Singapore (OBU), and Malaysia on the basis of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into by India with these countries. Vide assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO by referring

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1649/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mr. C. NareshFor Respondent: Mr. Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the exclusion of income of foreign branches situated in countries with whom India has entered into the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 10. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the year under consideration ... Bahrain, Thailand, Australia, Mumbai (OBU), Mauritius, U.A.E, Oman, Belgium, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A., Mauritius, (OBU), China, Singapore (OBU), and Malaysia on the basis of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into by India with these countries. Vide assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO by referring

M/S. Mashreq Bank Psc., Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) - 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1342/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadangshri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 37Section 44C

deduction at 5% as per section 44C of the Act. Without prejudice, the assessee submitted that as per Article 7(3) of India-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), all expenses incurred for the purpose of business of the Permanent Establishment (PE), including, the executive and administrative expenses, are allowable ... aspect to the issue. The contextual interpretation of Article 25 of the Treaty. Article 25 of the Treaty starts with the heading ‘Elimination of Double Taxation’. Thus, from the heading of the Article, it becomes clear that it provides the mechanism for elimination of double taxation of income

Ayyan Fire Works Factory Pvt. Ltd., Sivakasi vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2363/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth KumarFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy
Section 68

cannot be legally sustained, because, the same has already been accounted as sales in the books of accounts of the assessee, and tantamount to double taxation of the same income which is against the basic fundamental principles of taxation. 9. Moreover, the assessee has filed the comparative details

M/S. Bhaveshwar Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 14(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 688/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bhaveshwar Properties Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Circle-14(1)(3), 5Th Floor, Fine House, Vs. 4Th Floor, Anandji Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.G. Road, Rajawadi, M.K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai Pan : Aaacb1619B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande

view that the tax authorities have fell into error in making the addition of compensation amount again, as it resulted in double taxation of very same income. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition

Pradip Chhaganbhai Dalsaniya, Rajkot vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 367/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.367/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Pradip Chhaganbhai Dalsaniya Vs. Pr Cit, 3Rd Floor, Apex Apartment, Somnath Rajkot-1 Society University Road Rajkot 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akmpd7956N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

income tax has already been paid on it. So, if the same transactions are added and taxed in my hand then it amounts to double taxation 4.1 Further, your honour has alleged that transactions of Rs. 1,37,79,127/- in three bank accounts were unexplained within the meaning ... assessing officer should not collect the tax on the same amount, twice. That is, the same amount should not be suffered tax twice, hence double taxation should be avoided, therefore, considering these facts, assessment order passed by the assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Vishal Infrastructure Limited, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 994/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri P. Satyanarayana Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43B

computation of income. However, the Ld. AO again added the same amount while completing his order u/s.143(3) of the Act, which resulted in double taxation of income by Rs.3,63,126/- in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to delete the addition

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 762/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153A

made in original assessment which was of similar nature and once again making an addition of Rs.4,40,00,000/- would result in double taxation. 14 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that addition of Rs.4,40,00,000/-was not made by the AO while ... computing the total income to avoid double taxation of income and not based on principle of telescoping. 15. The Learned CTA) ought to have appreciated the fact that entire amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- was available before AO to telescope against unexplained income/ investment