← All Phrases

“dividend distribution tax”

Special Rate ProvisionsSection 115-OSection 115-O587 judgments

The decision most relied on for dividend distribution tax is Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT (117 Taxmann.com 96), cited in 291 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on dividend distribution tax

Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT
117 Taxmann.com 96 · 2020 · High Court
291
citing judgments

Education cess paid on total income and dividend distribution tax are allowable deductions for income tax purposes.

Trib.) Giesecke & Devrient 16.994%). India Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT
120 Taxmann.com 338 · 2020 · High Court
52
citing judgments

The provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) would prevail over the domestic law rate of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) under Section 115-O.

Kerala Vision Ltd. v. ACIT (
35 Taxmann.com 463 · 2013 · ITAT
52
citing judgments

Transactions carried out on the purchase of off-the-shelf software prior to the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (October 15, 2011) are not liable for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS).

Loyal Motor Service Co. Ltd. v. CIT
14 ITR 647 · 1946 · High Court
48
citing judgments

A payment of bonus or commission is allowable as a business deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) unless it constitutes a distribution of profits or dividends, thereby distinguishing payments genuinely for services from those merely intended to escape taxation.

Union of India v. Tata Tea Co Ltd.
398 ITR 260 · 2017 · Supreme Court
38
citing judgments

Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is a tax on the profits of the domestic company, not on the shareholder. The Supreme Court's decision in Tata Tea Co. Ltd. did not address the precise nature of DDT as a tax on the company versus the shareholder.

Torrent India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
35 Taxmann.com 300 · 2013 · High Court
36
citing judgments

Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by a company is refundable to the assessee, even though Section 115-O(4) states DDT is a final payment.

CIT v. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd.
367 ITR 346 · 2014 · High Court
27
citing judgments

Section 2(22)(e) cannot be applied where the assessee is not a shareholder of the lending company, as its purpose is to prevent tax avoidance by distributing company profits as loans to shareholders.

SIDBI v. CBDT
133 Taxmann.com 158 · 2021 · High Court
23
citing judgments

Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) under section 115-O is a charge on the company's profits and not on the income in the hands of the shareholder, meaning it does not constitute double taxation and is not subject to Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA).

Judgments citing dividend distribution tax

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5005/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. X V I. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). X V II. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). XVIII. Disallowance of year

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5707/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocat

claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. XVI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). XVII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). XVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5033/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo- moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. XVI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). XVII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). XVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4314/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. XVI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). XVII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). XVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4313/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo- moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. XVI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). XVII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). XVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 3862/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv

claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. XVI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). XVII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). XVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3788/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. X V I. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). X VII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). X VIII. Disallowance of year

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3785/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo- moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. XVI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). XVII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). XVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4315/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. XVI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). XVII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). XVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions

DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Housing Developement Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4162/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocat
Section 1

claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. XVI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). XVII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). XVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions

DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Housing Developement Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 4161/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and
Section 1

claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. XVI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). XVII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). XVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Mumbai vs. Viacom18 Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4658/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta
Section 153(5)Section 244A

AMOUNT ALREADY REFUNDED AMOUNT ALREADY REFUNDED 0 55. TOTAL TAX PAID TOTAL TAX PAID 9,95,27,749 9,95,27,749 DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX DETAILS DETAILS 56. ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX AND ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX AND 0 INTEREST PAYABLE ON INTEREST PAYABLE ON DISTRIBUTED PROFITS DISTRIBUTED PROFITS

Viacom 18 Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4608/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta
Section 153(5)Section 244A

AMOUNT ALREADY REFUNDED AMOUNT ALREADY REFUNDED 0 55. TOTAL TAX PAID TOTAL TAX PAID 9,95,27,749 9,95,27,749 DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX DETAILS DETAILS 56. ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX AND ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX AND 0 INTEREST PAYABLE ON INTEREST PAYABLE ON DISTRIBUTED PROFITS DISTRIBUTED PROFITS

Viacom 18 Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4606/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta
Section 153(5)Section 244A

AMOUNT ALREADY REFUNDED AMOUNT ALREADY REFUNDED 0 55. TOTAL TAX PAID TOTAL TAX PAID 9,95,27,749 9,95,27,749 DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX DETAILS DETAILS 56. ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX AND ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX AND 0 INTEREST PAYABLE ON INTEREST PAYABLE ON DISTRIBUTED PROFITS DISTRIBUTED PROFITS

Mohan Kumar Sharma, Uttar Pradesh vs. Ward 5 (1) (5), Noida, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/DEL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1966 और 1967/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Kunal Pandey, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Prajna Paramita, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 80I

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, education cess paid by the assessee on total income and dividend distribution tax, should be directed to be allowed as deduction, in terms of the law clarified by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer ought to have restricted the levy of dividend distribution tax on the dividend distributed/ paid to Guardian International Corporation, to 15 percent in terms of Article 10(2) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between

Lokesh Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-45(5), Delhi

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1575/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Indus Biotech Limited, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

ITA 122/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the issue of grant of credit of dividend distribution tax (DDT) amounting to INR 1,52,65,049 under section 115-O of the Act to the Ld. AO without appreciating the fact that

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3851/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roysony India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 22 (2), A – 18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (Pan :Aabcs1571Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144Bof The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020- 21Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

issue of deductibility of education cess was debatable in nature and there were multiple judicial precedents in favour of the deduction. Credit of Dividend Distribution Tax deposited by the Appellant not granted 27. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. A has grossly erred ... short granting the credit of Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs.3,05,68,841/- as against of Rs.9,88,30,565/- paid on 26 August 2019 vide challan no.07294 having BSR Code 0011349 even though the said challan is also appearing in Form 26AS of the subject year. Miscellaneous contentions

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2075/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

Puducherry on 28-05-2022 rejecting an application filed by the assessee u/s 237 of the Act claiming refund of excess payment of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT). The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - Ground No. 1 - General The Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... quashed. The detailed grounds of appeal, including the position in law and facts is set out in the ensuing paragraphs. Ground No.2 - Dividend Distribution Tax paid by the Company is a tax on shareholders income. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law, by considering that Dividend Distribution

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2074/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

Puducherry on 28-05-2022 rejecting an application filed by the assessee u/s 237 of the Act claiming refund of excess payment of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT). The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - Ground No. 1 - General The Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... quashed. The detailed grounds of appeal, including the position in law and facts is set out in the ensuing paragraphs. Ground No.2 - Dividend Distribution Tax paid by the Company is a tax on shareholders income. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law, by considering that Dividend Distribution