← All Phrases

“DTAA benefit”

International TaxSection 90Section 9053 judgments

The decision most relied on for DTAA benefit is CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. (346 ITR 467), cited in 371 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on DTAA benefit

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India
341 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
295
citing judgments

Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

(i) Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT
394 ITR 80 · 2017 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

This case provides foundational principles that illuminate the contours of the concept of 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) under tax treaties, especially regarding a 'fixed place' PE.

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.

CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar
267 ITR 654 · 2004 · Supreme Court
85
citing judgments

This case established a principle regarding the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) versus domestic tax law, particularly concerning the use of more beneficial provisions for an assessee, though its specific impact has been nullified by subsequent legal amendments.

CIT v. Manmohan Das
59 ITR 699 · 1966 · Supreme Court
47
citing judgments

The eligibility for an assessee to carry forward and set off losses, including capital losses, against future income is determined by the Assessing Officer in the year the set-off is claimed, not in the year the loss was incurred.

Tax v. ZTE Corporation
392 ITR 80 · 2017 · High Court
45
citing judgments

Payments for acquiring a software license, where only the right to use the software is granted and no copyright ownership is transferred, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act or the India-China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The judgment clarifies the distinction between copyright transfer and a mere license to use by referring to Sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act.

(5)) 3.12. DCIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd.
114 ITD 159 · 2008 · ITAT
44
citing judgments

An assessee has the option to choose between the provisions of the Income-tax Act and a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) in any given year, and the non-election of DTAA benefits in one year does not prevent claiming them in subsequent years.

Judgments citing DTAA benefit

Ortus Aircraft Lease 6(Dublin) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2) International Taxation, Mumbai

ITA 1106/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

rebut the applicability of the India–Ireland DTAA, the conclusion that the principal purpose of the assessee‟s incorporation was to obtain India–Ireland DTAA benefits is unsustainable. The impugned finding is, therefore, set aside. 75. Alternatively, and without prejudice, we also find merit in the submission that, even under

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2844/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

held that the DTAA would not apply to the levy of DDT under Section 115-0, unless the contracting states have agreed to extend DTAA benefits to the domestic company distributing dividends. The Tribunal, in that case, ruled that the DTAA is not automatically applicable to DDT unless expressly provided

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2843/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

held that the DTAA would not apply to the levy of DDT under Section 115-0, unless the contracting states have agreed to extend DTAA benefits to the domestic company distributing dividends. The Tribunal, in that case, ruled that the DTAA is not automatically applicable to DDT unless expressly provided

Silverplass Holdings Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 7396/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT- DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92A(2)(b)

vide draft assessment order dated 26 December 2017 passed under section 144C(1) r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, denied the DTAA benefits and proposed to tax the interest income earned by the assessee at the rate of 20 percent under section 115A ... erred in considering that the assessee is a conduit company and that its main purpose is not investment holding but to obtain DTAA benefit merely because the assessee has made investment only in one company which is its deemed associated enterprise as per section

Sivakarthick Raman, Madurai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 281/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:281/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sivakarthick Raman, The Assistant Commissioner Of 5/200, 2Nd Street, Alagupillai Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, T.Pudukudi, International Taxation Circle, Achampathu, Madurai. Madurai – 625 019. [Pan: Ajnpr-3214-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 15Section 15(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234DSection 5(2)Section 5(2)(a)Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

appreciate the provisions of India-China DTAA under Article 15(1) of India-China DTAA and has incorrectly relied on Article 23 to deny DTAA benefits to the Appellant. :-13-: ITA. No.:281/Chny/2025 (i). Article 15(1) is to be read independent of Article 23. (ii). Article 23 is applicable ... both of the Contracting States and since the Appellant in this case was a Resident of China, he will be eligible for the DTAA benefits of the India-China DTAA. (v). Further since, the assessee does not qualify to be a Resident of India and his global income

Invesco(India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -2 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

situated at Mauritius, in our considered view, the Mauritius based entity is not liable to pay capital gains tax in India on account of DTAA benefit and, therefore, the assessee has designed a plan to transfer the funds to the parent company through the structured transactions via Mauritius based company

Mr. 3 Sigma Global Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the gain arising from the transfer of Derivatives cannot be taxed in India and the addition made in this regard stands deleted. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is hereb...

ITA 1130/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Bhaumik Goda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

relevant observations of the DRP in this regard are extracted as under: “Panel has examined the matter of denial of India-Mauritius DTAA benefits to the applicant on basis of Beneficial Ownership concept. It is noteworthy that the Assessing Officer has not examined the substance of the applicant company. There

Essar Communications Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle-1 (2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

prejudice to the fact that the said Article 27A does not apply to A.Y. 2012-13 i.e., the year under adjudication for entitlement of DTAA benefits to the Assessee, even if the principle laid down in the LOB clause found in the India-Mauritius DTAA is applied for the earlier

Qualcomm Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Tax -Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 686/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar / Ms Jasmin
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 251

LTCL to be carried forward under the provisions of the Act and the assessee cannot be restricted from choosing not to avail the DTAA benefits. When the LTCG does not enter into the computation of total income then the question of setting off of the LTCL against the said gain

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

ITA 2681/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 92BSection 92C

2 ITA No.78, 2681/Kol/2018 & ITA Nos. 2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2013-14 to

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

resident in India and the A.O has wrongly held him non-resident. The Ld. AR has further argued that the assessee is eligible for DTAA benefit on the same income taxed in the two countries and the A.O has correctly allowed the same in assessment order passed ... rectified u/s 154 of the Act. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on other hand, supported the order of A.O and argued that DTAA benefit is not available to assessee. 6. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The Revenue has raised the ground

Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings, Llc, Mauritius vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 3097/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 115JSection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 270ASection 274

then the "net" capital gains as per M.S.P. Nadar Sons v. CIT [1993] 68 Taxman 152 (SC) are to be examined for DTA v. DTAA benefits. 2. Applicant has not netted off the capital gains, even from the same Share Sale Agreement, and has alternated between DTA v. DTAA provisions

Tvf Fund Ltd., Mauritius, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4632/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 153Section 74Section 90(2)

same are required to be computed as per the Act. (iii) The Assessing Officer erred in concluding that when the appellant has adopted DTAA benefit, resorting to carry forward under section 74 during the year, is claiming both Act and DTAA provisions for capital gains simultaneously and thus appellant

Wild West Domains, Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Tax., New Delhi

ITA 1774/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1774/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Wild West Domains, Llc Acit, Go Daddy India Domains & Hosting Vs. Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Services Private Limited, First Floor, Taxation, 01A167, Wework Bristol Chowk, Civic Centre, Platina Tower, Mg Road, Sector-28, Minto Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. Newdelhi. Pan No.Aabcw2372H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 234DSection 244ASection 274Section 9

submitted that the TRC filed by the Appellant will serves as a valid proof of tax residency and eligibility of the Appellant to claim DTAA benefit and therefore, the findings of the Ld. AO and Ld. DRP in denying the benefit under India- USA tax treaty are invalid and against

Bhs India Holdings, Inc., New Jersey, Usa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 1(1)(2), Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the stay application which is tagged along is dismissed being infructous

ITA 3286/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144G(13)

aforesaid discussion leaves us to only one conclusion, that at one end the assessee had not made any claim with regard to DTAA benefits and had firmly established the genuineness of transaction giving rise to disinvestment of shares held as capital assets on the other hand by not following

Mr. Shanmugam Ravi, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Assessement Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

ITA 951/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(3)Section 234A

ITA No.951/Bang/2023 Mr. Shanmugam Ravi, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT

Debarghya Chattopadhaya, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., International Taxation, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 24/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(2)Section 90

denied the claim because the assessee failed to furnish a tax residency certificate from United Kingdom which is required in order to claim DTAA benefit u/s 90 of the Act. Further we notice that the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and placed the copy ... resident of the UK during the period from 06.04.2013 to 05.04.2014. The Ld. AO also stated in the remand report that claim of DTAA benefit of the assessee is valid and therefore the salary income received for the work during stay at United Kingdom is exempt

Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes subject to the directions contained in para 11, 18 and 19 above

ITA 913/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

provided under the India-Ireland DTAA subject to verification by the Ld. AO as to the entitlement of the assesee to claim DTAA benefits based on TRC etc. The relevant observations and findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced below: 18 “10.5 Regarding taxability of interest on income

Kraft Foods Group Brands Llc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2495/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Us Raising Following Grounds In Its Appeal: -

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

assessee’s affairs are situated entirely in USA. Therefore, assessee is a non-resident of India for direct tax purposes. Accordingly, it claimed DTAA benefit between India and USA and filed Page No. | 7 Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC tax residency certificate issued by the USA Tax Authorities. During

Nearbuy Pte.. Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT (Intl Tax) Circle 3(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1607/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)

Residency Certificate and hence provisions of DTAA could not be applied. Since the assessee has incurred capital loss, there was no requirement of availing DTAA benefits. 10. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee has arrived at the value of shares under Rule 11UAA by considering