← 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 23-1, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Shri H.M
Section 1Section 10Section 115USection 143(3)Section 147

applicable to any payment made by the VCF to its investor and payment by VCC to the investor is exempted from Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT). Section 10(23FB) further provides that income of a SEBI regulated VCF or VCC, derived from investment in a domestic

ACIT-231, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 368/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Shri H.M
Section 1Section 10Section 115USection 143(3)Section 147

applicable to any payment made by the VCF to its investor and payment by VCC to the investor is exempted from Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT). Section 10(23FB) further provides that income of a SEBI regulated VCF or VCC, derived from investment in a domestic

ACIT, Piramal Chambers vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

ITA 194/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19
Section 10Section 10(35)Section 115USection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

applicable to any payment made by the VCF to its investor and payment by VCC to the investor is exempted from Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT). Section 10(23FB) further provides that income of a SEBI regulated VCF or VCC, derived from investment in a domestic company i.e. Venture Capital Undertaking

M/S. Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 4 (1), Chennai

ITA 339/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan-For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

date of SEZ Notification. 4. Payment of minimum alternate tax under section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act. 5. Payment of dividend distribution tax under section 115 O of the Income Tax Act 6. Payment of Central Sales Tax for its authorized operations. ITA No.870/Chny/2017

M/S. Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

ITA 338/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan-For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

date of SEZ Notification. 4. Payment of minimum alternate tax under section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act. 5. Payment of dividend distribution tax under section 115 O of the Income Tax Act 6. Payment of Central Sales Tax for its authorized operations. ITA No.870/Chny/2017

Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Chengalput vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 870/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

date of SEZ Notification. 4. Payment of minimum alternate tax under section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act. 5. Payment of dividend distribution tax under section 115 O of the Income Tax Act 6. Payment of Central Sales Tax for its authorized operations. 7. Payment of Service Tax under

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

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

ITA 7745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer (learned AO') has erred in not determining and granting refund on account of excess dividend distribution tax paid by the Appellant for the subject AY. 5.1 That the learned AO erred in not invoking the provisions of India-Finland Double Taxation Avoidance ... rate of tax on payment of dividend to the Appellant's shareholder. 5.2 That the learned AO erred in not determining the Dividend Distribution Tax as per the tax rate provided under Article 10 of India Finland DTAA and thereby not granting refund of the excess Dividend Distribution Tax taxes

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1166/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer/DRP ought to have restricted the levy of the dividend distribution tax, on the dividend of Rs.588,151,791 distributed I paid to Sony Holding (Asia) B. V, Netherlands, being resident of the Netherlands ... that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer/DRP ought to have restricted the levy of the dividend distribution tax, on the dividend of Rs.588,151,791 distributed I paid to Sony Holding (Asia) B. V, Netherlands to 10 percent in terms of Article

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 1026/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer/DRP ought to have restricted the levy of the dividend distribution tax, on the dividend of Rs.588,151,791 distributed I paid to Sony Holding (Asia) B. V, Netherlands, being resident of the Netherlands ... that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer/DRP ought to have restricted the levy of the dividend distribution tax, on the dividend of Rs.588,151,791 distributed I paid to Sony Holding (Asia) B. V, Netherlands to 10 percent in terms of Article

M/S. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1916/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assessee reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that: 1. The Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid under section 115-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act) on dividends declared and paid by the Appellant to its parent ... Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 15. Next issue is Additional Ground raised by the Assessee namely Dividend Distribution Tax [herein after referred as DDT] paid u/s.115O to parent foreign shareholder, who is a tax resident of I.T.A Nos. 1613 & 1916/Ahd/2019 and Ors. A.Ys

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch

ITA 1872/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assessee reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that: 1. The Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid under section 115-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act) on dividends declared and paid by the Appellant to its parent ... Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 15. Next issue is Additional Ground raised by the Assessee namely Dividend Distribution Tax [herein after referred as DDT] paid u/s.115O to parent foreign shareholder, who is a tax resident of I.T.A Nos. 1613 & 1916/Ahd/2019 and Ors. A.Ys

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch

ITA 1711/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assessee reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that: 1. The Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid under section 115-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act) on dividends declared and paid by the Appellant to its parent ... Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 15. Next issue is Additional Ground raised by the Assessee namely Dividend Distribution Tax [herein after referred as DDT] paid u/s.115O to parent foreign shareholder, who is a tax resident of I.T.A Nos. 1613 & 1916/Ahd/2019 and Ors. A.Ys

Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1613/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assessee reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that: 1. The Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid under section 115-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act) on dividends declared and paid by the Appellant to its parent ... Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 15. Next issue is Additional Ground raised by the Assessee namely Dividend Distribution Tax [herein after referred as DDT] paid u/s.115O to parent foreign shareholder, who is a tax resident of I.T.A Nos. 1613 & 1916/Ahd/2019 and Ors. A.Ys

Bigflex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the tax appeal is dismissed

ITA 3237/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalbigflex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Parijat House, 1076 Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Maharashtra 400 018 Pan: Aaccs2112A ..... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward-8(2) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase, Ld. DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Section 10(34) of the Act. 12. The contention of the counsel for the Revenue that the company having not paid such dividend distribution tax, exemption under Section 10(34) should be deprived to the assessee needs to be noted only for rejection. If a certain income is exempt

Shriram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 173/CHNY/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.173/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shriram Finance Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of [Formerly Known As Shriram Transport Income Tax, Finance Company Limited), Corporate Circle 3(1), Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Chennai. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 14ASection 2

facts and circumstances of the case. 19. We note that the assessee declared dividend of ₹.158,81,79,152/- on 27.06.2019. The dividend distribution tax was paid on 08.07.2019, 14 I.T.A. No.173/Chny/24 within the prescribed time limit of 14 days i.e., from the date of declaration of dividend. The said ... justified. We note that there is no dispute with regard to the dividend declaration on 27.06.2019 and the payment of dividend distribution tax on 08.07.2019, which is, in our opinion, well within the prescribed time as provided under section 115-O of the Act, but the only error as committed

Piaggio Vehicles Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 611/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

erred in not granting the benefit of Article 11 of the India- Italy Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) in determining the Dividend Distribution Tax (‘DDT’) payable, without appreciating the fact that the dividend declared and paid by the Appellant to Piaggio & C.S.p.A., Italy, being tax on dividend income should ... assessee raised an additional claim pertaining to refund of excess taxes paid on dividend distributed. The assessee claimed that as the Dividend Distribution Tax (“DDT”) represents tax on dividend income, the assessee should be granted the benefit of Article 11 of the India-Italy Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (“India-Italy

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Hsbc Electronic Data Processing India Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1632/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115Section 115JSection 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

allowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act while computing the total income. To restrict and refund the Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT) deposited on dividend distributed / paid to the Non-resident shareholders in terms of applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') 10. The Ld.AO/ CIT(A) ought ... ground no. 7 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Ground No.10 & 11 of the assessee relates to refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (“ DDT”). This ground has been raised by the assessee as an additional ground. The fact related to this ground are that the assessee

Century Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vadodara vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Present Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 867/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 867/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Century Pharmaceuticals Ltd., बनाम Assessment Unit, 406, World Trade Centre, Income Tax Department Vs. Sayajigunj, Vadodara Represented Through Gujarat-390005 Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda Pan: Aaacc 7646 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Shri M.J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr Dr ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 26.02.2024, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.1,50,000/- U/S 271B Of The Act, For Delayed Furnishing Of Tax Audit Report As Required U/S 44Ab Of The Act, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Descriptive & Argumentative In Nature. I Am, Therefore, Reproducing Only The Highlighted Portion Of The Grounds Of Appeal Which Are As Follows:- “1. On The Facts & On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of Your Appellant’S Case & In Law, The Honorable Cit-Appeals (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao Of Invoking Provision Of Section 271B, In Our Case After The Six Years By Violating The Provision Of The Section 275(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr DR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 275(1)Section 44A

Board of Directors approved the aforesaid dividend in their Board Meeting held on 08.03.2016 and paid the Dividend to the Shareholders and the Dividend Distribution Tax to Income Tax. Subsequent to the end of the year, the Statutory Audit of our accounts was conducted in July, 2016 and the same

M/S. Shri Rang Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 666/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44A

taxed in the hands of Ms. Tapasvi A. Patel and Shri Arvindbhai T. Patel respectively. The assessee company was liable to pay dividend distribution tax of Rs.21,96,510/- i.e. 15% of Rs.1,46,43,398/-, on deemed dividend as applicable as per Income Tax Act. 5. Being aggrieved

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 9482/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu S. Sinha & Bhuwan Dhoopar, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) & Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

nature on a protective basis. Further, the AO held that excess royalty had been paid by the assessee to evade the payment of dividend distribution tax amounting to INR 156.67 crores. Accordingly, in addition to the disallowance of INR 921.9 crores, the AO also added INR 156.67 crores on account ... payment of dividend distribution tax to the tax liability of the appellant. The Ld. DRP rejected the approach of the AO in entirety. The Ld. DRP however, erroneously stated in its directions that TPO had not carried out a benchmarking for the royalty payment and directed the TPO to carry