M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the DTAA does not get triggered when a domestic company pays DDT under Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee is not eligible for a refund of excess DDT as claimed.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid, arguing that the India-Italy Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) should apply. The assessee contended that DDT is a tax on dividend income and should be taxed at the DTAA rate.
What were the issues?
Whether the benefit of the India-Italy DTAA can be applied to Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- B.M. Amin Umma v. ITO7 citing26 ITR 137 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “C” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune for Assessment Year 2015-16 dated 06.10.2022 passed under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
“1. Refund of excess taxes paid on dividend distributed On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not granting the benefit of Article 11 of the India- Italy Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA') in determini
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 115-O
- Wpp Media India Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 9297/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs Group M Media India Private Limited, MumbaiITA 9197/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Ucb India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs Addl/ ACIT/ Jt/ Dy/ NFAC, MumbaiITA 905/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- Interactive Television Private Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4862/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- Denso Haryana Private Limited, New Delhi vs JCIT, Special Range 3, New DelhiITA 1250/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026