← All Phrases

“domestic company”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(22A) / ITR-6540 judgments

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the\n

ITA 1783/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: The Tribunal Raising The\Nfollowing Grounds Of Appeal For Ay 2008-09 & More Or Less Similar\Ngrounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised In The Appeals For Other A.Ys. As\Nwell:\N\N“1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The National Faceless\Nappeal Centre, Delhi [The Ld. Cit(A)] Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Refund\Nof Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (Ddt) Paid By The Appellant\Namounting To Rs.94,81,687.\N\N2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred\Nin Following The Special Bench Decision Of Mumbai Tribunal In The Case Of\Ndcit Vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (Ita No 6997/Mum/2019) Upholding That\Nddt Is A Tax On Profits Of The Domestic Company & Not On The\Nshareholder.\N\N2.

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

case of\nDCIT vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (ITA No 6997/Mum/2019) upholding that\nDDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the\nshareholder.\n\n2. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in not appreciating ... case of DCIT vs\nTata Oil India Pvt. Ltd. (ΙΤΑ Νο 6997/Mum/2019) upholding that\nDDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and is not a tax on\nthe shareholders and further held that DTAA does not get triggered\nwhen a domestic company pays

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1782/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

case of DCIT vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (ITA No 6997/Mum/2019) upholding that DDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the shareholder. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision ... diluted the reasoning of Bombay High Court in the said case that DDT is a tax on the Company paying the dividend and domestic company does not do so on behalf of the shareholder. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1781/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

case of DCIT vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (ITA No 6997/Mum/2019) upholding that DDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the shareholder. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision ... diluted the reasoning of Bombay High Court in the said case that DDT is a tax on the Company paying the dividend and domestic company does not do so on behalf of the shareholder. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1780/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

case of DCIT vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (ITA No 6997/Mum/2019) upholding that DDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the shareholder. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision ... diluted the reasoning of Bombay High Court in the said case that DDT is a tax on the Company paying the dividend and domestic company does not do so on behalf of the shareholder. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the\n

ITA 1779/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Tribunal Raising The\Nfollowing Grounds Of Appeal For Ay 2008-09 & More Or Less Similar\Ngrounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised In The Appeals For Other A.Ys. As\Nwell:\Nita No(S). 1776 To 1783/Kol/2024\N Assessment Year(S) 2008-09 To 2015-16\Nphilips India Limited.\N1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The National Faceless\Nappeal Centre, Delhi [The Ld. Cit(A)] Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Refund\Nof Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (Ddt) Paid By The Appellant\Namounting To Rs.94,81,687.\N2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred\Nin Following The Special Bench Decision Of Mumbai Tribunal In The Case Of\Ndcit Vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (Ita No 6997/Mum/2019) Upholding That\Nddt Is A Tax On Profits Of The Domestic Company & Not On The\Nshareholder.\N2.

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

case of\nDCIT vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (ITA No 6997/Mum/2019) upholding that\nDDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the\nshareholder.\n2. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in not appreciating the decision ... case of DCIT vs\nTata Oil India Pvt. Ltd. (ΙΤΑ Νο 6997/Mum/2019) upholding that\nDDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and is not a tax on\nthe shareholders and further held that DTAA does not get triggered\nwhen a domestic company pays

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the\n

ITA 1778/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Tribunal Raising The\Nfollowing Grounds Of Appeal For Ay 2008-09 & More Or Less Similar\Ngrounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised In The Appeals For Other A.Ys. As\Nwell:\Npage | 2\Nita No(S). 1776 To 1783/Kol/2024\N Assessment Year(S) 2008-09 To 2015-16\Nphilips India Limited.\N“1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The National Faceless\Nappeal Centre, Delhi [The Ld. Cit(A)] Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Refund\Nof Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (Ddt) Paid By The Appellant\Namounting To Rs.94,81,687.\N2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred\Nin Following The Special Bench Decision Of Mumbai Tribunal In The Case Of\Ndcit Vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (Ita No 6997/Mum/2019) Upholding That\Nddt Is A Tax On Profits Of The Domestic Company & Not On The\Nshareholder.\N2.

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

case of\nDCIT vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (ITA No 6997/Mum/2019) upholding that\nDDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the\nshareholder.\n2. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in not appreciating the decision ... case of DCIT vs\nTata Oil India Pvt. Ltd. (ΙΤΑ Νο 6997/Mum/2019) upholding that\nDDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and is not a tax on\nthe shareholders and further held that DTAA does not get triggered\nwhen a domestic company pays

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1777/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

case of DCIT vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (ITA No 6997/Mum/2019) upholding that DDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the shareholder. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision ... diluted the reasoning of Bombay High Court in the said case that DDT is a tax on the Company paying the dividend and domestic company does not do so on behalf of the shareholder. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the\n

ITA 1776/KOL/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: The Tribunal Raising The\Nfollowing Grounds Of Appeal For Ay 2008-09 & More Or Less Similar\Ngrounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised In The Appeals For Other A.Ys. As\Nwell:\Nita No(S). 1776 To 1783/Kol/2024\N Assessment Year(S) 2008-09 To 2015-16\Nphilips India Limited.\N“1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The National Faceless\Nappeal Centre, Delhi [The Ld. Cit(A)] Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Refund\Nof Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (Ddt) Paid By The Appellant\Namounting To Rs.94,81,687.\N2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred\Nin Following The Special Bench Decision Of Mumbai Tribunal In The Case Of\Ndcit Vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (Ita No 6997/Mum/2019) Upholding That\Nddt Is A Tax On Profits Of The Domestic Company & Not On The\Nshareholder.\N2.

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

case of\nDCIT vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (ITA No 6997/Mum/2019) upholding that\nDDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the\nshareholder.\n2. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in not appreciating the decision ... case of DCIT vs\nTata Oil India Pvt. Ltd. (ΙΤΑ Νο 6997/Mum/2019) upholding that\nDDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and is not a tax on\nthe shareholders and further held that DTAA does not get triggered\nwhen a domestic company pays

ELECTRONFAB ENGINEERING PVT LTD,SEEPZ SEZ MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4828/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2024-25
For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate (virtually appear) & Mrs. Usha DalalFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250

above.\nDomestic Company)\n\nWhether total turnover/ gross receipts in the previous\nyear 2017-18 exceeds 400 crore rupees? (Yes/No) No.\"\n(applicable for Domestic Company)\n\n12. It is clear from the above that against the entry whether the petitioner has opted for\ntaxation under Section 115BA/115BAA/115BAB, the petitioner ... Amendment) Act, 2019 w.e.f. 01.04.2020. As per the Section, the income tax payable in respect\nof the total income of a person, being a domestic company, for any previous year relevant to the\n assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2020, shall, at the option

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

section 115BAA. Before we address the issues raised by both sides it is relevant to reproduce section 115BAA: "115BAA. Tax on income of certain domestic companies. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of this Chapter, other than those mentioned under section 115BA and section ... 115BAB, the income-tax payable in respect of the total income of a person, being a domestic company, for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2020, shall, at the option of such person, be 20 Getinge Medical India Private

BADA SAAB PROPERTIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4449/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Badasaab Properties Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 501 Krystal, 206 Waterfield Road, Tax, Bandra (West) Vs. Circle – 4(1)(1), Maharashtra – 400 050 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Pan: Aaacb1642A (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

section 119(2)(b) of the Act. M/s. Badasaab Properties Pvt. Ltd. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company and had filed its return of income for the year under consideration dated 30.10.2024 declaring total income at Rs.20 ... that as per the Taxation Law (Amendment Act, 2019) w.e.f. 01.04.2020 u/s 115BAA of the Act which was then inserted, the assessee being a domestic company for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after 01.04.2020 shall, at the option of such person, be taxed

TML BENEFIT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result: (i) The appeal against the adjustment under section 143(1)

ITA 7826/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

loss of ₹1,40,700/-. During the year, the assessee received dividend income of ₹86,40,00,000/- from Tech Mahindra Limited, a domestic company. At the relevant time, dividend distributed by a domestic company was subject to Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) in the hands of the company under section ... reply explaining the genesis of the Trust, its status, and the exclusive beneficiary being TML. It clarified that the dividend was received from a domestic company which had paid DDT and that, as per the provisions applicable for the year under consideration, dividend referred to in section

TML BENEFIT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result: (i) The appeal against the adjustment under section 143(1)

ITA 7756/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

loss of ₹1,40,700/-. During the year, the assessee received dividend income of ₹86,40,00,000/- from Tech Mahindra Limited, a domestic company. At the relevant time, dividend distributed by a domestic company was subject to Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) in the hands of the company under section ... reply explaining the genesis of the Trust, its status, and the exclusive beneficiary being TML. It clarified that the dividend was received from a domestic company which had paid DDT and that, as per the provisions applicable for the year under consideration, dividend referred to in section

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee\nare partly allowed

ITA 2149/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nCA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: \nMS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

clause-(n) of\nRegulation-2 of the Venture Capital Regulations. As per the\nVenture Capital Fund [in short “VCF"] Regulation as VCU\nbeing a domestic company whose shares are not listed at a\nStock Exchange in India and which is engaged in the\nbusiness of providing services, production or manufacturing ... Alternative Investment Funds ('AIF')\nRegulations.\nAs per clause (aa) of the AIF Regulations (prior to amendment),\n"venture capital undertaking" means a domestic company:\n(i)\nwhich is not listed on a recognised stock exchange in India\nat the time of making investment, and\n55\nITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2148/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nCA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: \nMS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

clause-(n) of\nRegulation-2 of the Venture Capital Regulations. As per the\nVenture Capital Fund [in short “VCF"] Regulation as VCU\nbeing a domestic company whose shares are not listed at a\nStock Exchange in India and which is engaged in the\nbusiness of providing services, production or manufacturing ... Alternative Investment Funds ('AIF')\nRegulations.\nAs per clause (aa) of the AlF Regulations (prior to amendment),\n"venture capital undertaking" means a domestic company:\n(i)\nwhich is not listed on a recognised stock exchange in India\nat the time of making investment, and\n54\nITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2147/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

clause-(n) of\nRegulation-2 of the Venture Capital Regulations. As per the\nVenture Capital Fund [in short “VCF"] Regulation as VCU\nbeing a domestic company whose shares are not listed at a\nStock Exchange in India and which is engaged in the\nbusiness of providing services, production or manufacturing ... Alternative Investment Funds ('AIF')\nRegulations.\nAs per clause (aa) of the AIF Regulations (prior to amendment),\n"venture capital undertaking" means a domestic company:\n(i)\nwhich is not listed on a recognised stock exchange in India\nat the time of making investment, and\n55\nITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD vs. THOGARCHEDU SUBHA SRI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1058/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2023-24
For Appellant: Shri BG Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90(4)Section 90(5)

hereby declared that\nthe charge of tax in respect of a foreign company at a rate higher than the\nrate at which a domestic company is chargeable, shall not be regarded\nas less favourable charge or levy of tax in respect of such foreign\ncompany.\nExplanation 2.—For the purposes

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D,C,I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 975/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

Income Tax Act, 1961 and interest thereon Rs.4,06,965/- under section 115-P of the Act considering the appellant as a Domestic Company instead of Co-operative Society, which is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. 5. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC ... justified by upholding the change of Status of the appellant under the Income tax Act, 1961 from "Co-operative Society" to "Domestic Company" disregarding the order of this Hon'ble Court in appellant's own case

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

ITA 974/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

Income Tax Act, 1961 and\ninterest thereon Rs.4,06,965/- under section 115-P of the Act considering\nthe appellant as a Domestic Company instead of Co-operative Society,\nwhich is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law.\n5. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC ... Income Tax Act, 1961 and\ninterest thereon Rs 4,44,463/- under section 115-P of the Act considering\nthe appellant as a Domestic Company instead of Co-operative Society,\nwhich is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law.\n5. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 6, SILIGURI

ITA 2237/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

Income Tax Act, 1961 and\ninterest thereon Rs.4,06,965/- under section 115-P of the Act considering\nthe appellant as a Domestic Company instead of Co-operative Society,\nwhich is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law.\n5. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC ... Income Tax Act, 1961 and\ninterest thereon Rs 4,44,463/- under section 115-P of the Act considering\nthe appellant as a Domestic Company instead of Co-operative Society,\nwhich is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law.\n5. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals

Showing 1–20 of 540 · Page 1 of 27

...