← 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

Lanxess India Private Limited, Thane vs. Income-Tax Officer, Wagle Industrial Estate

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

ITA 4632/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Prabhash Shankar ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

duly filed a return of income in India offering such services to taxes, and that disallowing payments made by the Appellant would lead to double taxation. 13. Not appreciating that the services availed by the Appellant are not in the nature of shareholder services nor stewardship, duplicative or incidental services

Buro Happpold Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation -1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4350/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara () Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta/ Nishit ParikhFor Respondent: Shri S. G. Menon, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 13 of India 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 13 of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA). 2. Ground No. II - Taxability of amount received as management fees & Taxability of amount received as management ... Article 13 of ('FTS') as per Section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 13 of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 3. Ground No. III - Erroneous rate of tax applied while computing Erroneous rate of tax applied

Shrikant Singhania, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jpr, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2019-20

ITA 1221/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

short Shrikant Singhania vs. ACIT stock has been separately made, then the separate addition of unaccounted sales cannot be made and it amounts to double taxation. Further, the entire sales cannot be added as income and only profit embedded in the transaction can be added for taxation purpose

The George Telegraph Training Institute, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 29(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 563/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234B

assessee. k) That when the beneficiaries had paid tax on the trust income, demanding tax again from the trust, amounts to double taxation, which is no permissible under the scheme of income tax. l) that for the above, the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 01.10.2012 ultra

The George Telegraph Training Institute, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 29(1)., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 562/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234B

assessee. k) That when the beneficiaries had paid tax on the trust income, demanding tax again from the trust, amounts to double taxation, which is no permissible under the scheme of income tax. l) that for the above, the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 01.10.2012 ultra

Ravi Ramakrishnan, Singapore vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly the alternate plea of the assessee in Ground No.4 is allowed

ITA 5990/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

erred in not granting corresponding relief in computation of capital gains as per section 49(4) of the Act. This has resulted in double taxation of the same income, once as Capital Gains and again as Income from Other Sources, which is not what the law intends

DCIT (It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Haskins Sells LLP, Uk

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

ITA 4517/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 195(2)

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

DCIT (It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP, Uk

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

ITA 4515/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 195(2)

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat vs. Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 224/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

account of M/s Nirav & Co. to the account of the assessee was actually put to use for purchase of bullions. Hence, no question of double taxation arises in this case and, therefore, the rationale behind peak credit theory applicability in present case is not justifiable ... income of the assessee, addition of the same amount once again u/s 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. 13.4 The ld. AR also submitted that AO in fact didn't make the addition u/s 68 of the Act but he invoked section

Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 197/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

account of M/s Nirav & Co. to the account of the assessee was actually put to use for purchase of bullions. Hence, no question of double taxation arises in this case and, therefore, the rationale behind peak credit theory applicability in present case is not justifiable ... income of the assessee, addition of the same amount once again u/s 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. 13.4 The ld. AR also submitted that AO in fact didn't make the addition u/s 68 of the Act but he invoked section

Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 451/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Mandir Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Gandhinagar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ 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/Order 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"].

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Pavani Structurals Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 84/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Rs.83 lakhs has already taken as income by the assessee, the addition made by the Ld. AO on the same income leads to double taxation in the hands of the assessee, which is not allowable as per the Act. Therefore, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Pavani Structurals Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 478/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Rs.83 lakhs has already taken as income by the assessee, the addition made by the Ld. AO on the same income leads to double taxation in the hands of the assessee, which is not allowable as per the Act. Therefore, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Pavani Structurals Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 477/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Rs.83 lakhs has already taken as income by the assessee, the addition made by the Ld. AO on the same income leads to double taxation in the hands of the assessee, which is not allowable as per the Act. Therefore, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting

Sony Serpent Eggs Factory, Sivakasi vs. ITO, Ward-3, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 2337/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 69A

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. Tamilnadu Transmission Corpn. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2040/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2794/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2040/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Tamilnadu Transmission Corp. Ltd. Acit बनाम #144, Npkrr Maligai, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle-3(1), / Vs. Chennai-600 002. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aadct-4780-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-12-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

employee cost of Rs.7.85 Crores has already been disallowed by the assessee in the computation of income and disallowing the same would amount to double taxation. The Ld. AO is directed to verify the same and disallow the expenditure only once. 4.7 All these grounds stand allowed for statistical purposes

M/S. Sbs Brothers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1895/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1895/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S.Sbs Brothers, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.44/55, Strotten Muthiah Street, Tax Sowcarpet, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-79 Chennai [Pan: Aahfs6119B]

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

grounds are Page - 1 - of 9 :- 2 -: centering around the stand of the assessee that the additions made by the Ld. AO tantamount to double taxation and therefore adjudicated together. 3.0 The factual matrix surrounding the case is that a survey u/s 133A was done on the assessee’s premise

M/S. Sbs Agencies, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1894/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S.Sbs Agencies, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.18, Audiappa Naicken Street, Tax Sowcarpet, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-600 079. Chennai [Pan: Aalfs9107M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anita, Add.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

grounds are centering around the stand of the assessee that the additions made by Page - 1 - of 9 :- 2 -: the Ld. AO tantamount to double taxation and therefore adjudicated together. 3.0 The factual matrix surrounding the case is that a survey u/s 133A was done on the assessee’s premise

Sebco Property Private Limited, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1471/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1428/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1429/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1430/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1431/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1432/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit M/S Sebco Property Private Limited बनाम/ Central Circle-2, 24D, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Vs. Trichy. K.K. Nagar, Trichy-620 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-0810-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1467/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1468/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) &

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

given in respect of one against the other. The objective of telescoping is to bring real income to tax and to eliminate the double taxation of same income i.e., once at the time of receipt and again at the time of its application. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kale ... Khan Mohammad Hanif (1963 50 ITR 1) explained the issue of double taxation as propounded by the theory of telescoping as under: - "The question would seem to suggest that because the income from a disclosed source has been computed on the basis of an estimate and not on the basis

Sebco Property Private Limited, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1470/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1428/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1429/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1430/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1431/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1432/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit M/S Sebco Property Private Limited बनाम/ Central Circle-2, 24D, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Vs. Trichy. K.K. Nagar, Trichy-620 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-0810-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1467/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1468/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) &

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

given in respect of one against the other. The objective of telescoping is to bring real income to tax and to eliminate the double taxation of same income i.e., once at the time of receipt and again at the time of its application. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kale ... Khan Mohammad Hanif (1963 50 ITR 1) explained the issue of double taxation as propounded by the theory of telescoping as under: - "The question would seem to suggest that because the income from a disclosed source has been computed on the basis of an estimate and not on the basis