Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed three appeals against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, pertaining to assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2013-14. The appeals challenged the denial of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) and the rejection of the claim for applicability of the India-Slovenia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) using the Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the issues involved were covered by the Special Bench decision in the case of DCIT v. Total Oil India P. Ltd. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax is allowable and if the MFN clause of a DTAA can be invoked without a separate notification.
Sections Cited
115-O, 237
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
Date of Hearing 30.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.11.2025 ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:
This bunch of three appeals are by the assessee and they are directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld.
CIT(A), Delhi, all dated 07.10.2024, arising out of assessment orders all dated 27.06.2024 passed u/s 237 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) pertaining to Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2013-14 respectively.
Since, the issues are common in all the appeals, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
First, we shall take up the appeal in for Assessment year 2008-09 as a lead case. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in this case:-
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not allowing refund of excess Dividend Distribution tax amounting to INR 4,99,16,610 paid under section 115-0 of the Act along with applicable interest by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench in the case of DCIT v. Total Oil India (P.) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 332 (Mumbai-Trib.) (SB) without appreciating the fact that due to incomplete appreciation of legal history, circulars, memorandum and background of the case an incorrect view has been framed by the Hon'ble Special Bench that the provisions of double taxation avoidance agreement does not get triggered when a domestic company pays DDT u/s 115-0 of the Act.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by rejecting the claim of applicability of beneficial provision of India-Slovenia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement through the use of Most Favored Nation clause of India-Netherland tax treaty without appreciating the fact that various judicial forums have allowed the applicability of beneficial provisions in the past and accordingly it is an established customary law that no separate notification is required for the claim of MFN benefit.
During the proceedings before us, at the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee informed the Bench that the issues involved in this appeal are covered against the assessee in the Special Bench decision in the case of Dy. CIT v. Total Oil India P. Ltd., cited in 149 taxmann.com 332,
Per Contra, ld. DR agreed with the submission made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee.
We have heard the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and as the grounds of appeal in this case are squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Dy. CIT v. Total Oil India P. Ltd., cited in 149 taxmann.com 332, therefore, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Since, the grounds raised in for AY 2008-09 are identical as those raised grounds of appeal in AYs 2009-10 and 2013-14 hence, the decision rendered hereinabove for AY 2008-09 shall apply mutatis mutandis for all the Assessment years also except with variance in figures.
8. In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th November, 2025.