← 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

Tiger Global Eight Holdings, Mauritius vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 2345/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Tiger Global Eight Holdings, Vs Dcit, C/O 202 Rajnigandha International Taxation, Apartment, Circle 3(1)(1), Prof. V.S. Agashe Path, New Delhi. Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028, Maharashtra. Pan: Aafct0276M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate; Shri Manish Kant, Advocate; & Ms Amrita Shenoy & Hetal Jakharia, Cas Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)

Indian company were also not taxable in the hands of the recipient till A/Y 2020-21 provided that the Indian company has paid dividend distribution tax ("DDT") in India. Under the current treaty between Mauritius and Singapore, subject to certain conditions, an entity which is a tax resident in Mauritius

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 346/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

under consideration, i.e. AY 2017-18. Goodyear India Ltd. 8. That the assessing officer erred on the facts and in law in determining Dividend Distribution Tax (‘DDT’) payable of Rs. 9,29,76,804 (including interest of Rs. 3,66,27,226) in Computation Sheet issued along with order passed ... Assessee, accordingly, the Ground No. 7 & 7.1 of the Assessee are dismissed. 40. The Ground No. 8 which is regarding Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT), is not pressed by the Assessee, accordingly we dismissed the Ground No. 8. 41. The Ground No. 9 is regarding incorrectly charging interest u/s 234C

Goodyear India Ltd, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1451/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

under consideration, i.e. AY 2017-18. Goodyear India Ltd. 8. That the assessing officer erred on the facts and in law in determining Dividend Distribution Tax (‘DDT’) payable of Rs. 9,29,76,804 (including interest of Rs. 3,66,27,226) in Computation Sheet issued along with order passed ... Assessee, accordingly, the Ground No. 7 & 7.1 of the Assessee are dismissed. 40. The Ground No. 8 which is regarding Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT), is not pressed by the Assessee, accordingly we dismissed the Ground No. 8. 41. The Ground No. 9 is regarding incorrectly charging interest u/s 234C

John Deere India Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 692/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., Acit , Pune Tower.No.14, Magarpatta City, Cyber City, Vs. Hadapsar,I.E.S.O., Pune – 411013 Pan: Aaacj4233B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 16-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp :

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

paid of Rs.2,88,31,272/-. 2. Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that on the dividend declared by assessee, the dividend distribution tax has been paid @ 20.36% as against the rate of 10% provided in the DTAA between India and Singapore and accordingly, the said rate ... DTAA 2 should be applied for the payment of dividend distribution tax and accordingly, the excess tax paid should be refunded. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case in brief that the assessee is engaged

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1142/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

assessee-company has paid dividend of ₹50,02,48,000/- to its holding co. Peri Mauritius on which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) liability of ₹7,01,60,000/- was paid by the assessee-company in terms of provisions of Section 115O of the Act. Similar payments ... thus observed that wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company paying dividend distribution tax, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any. No such protection has been shown to be extended in the instant

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1140/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

assessee-company has paid dividend of ₹50,02,48,000/- to its holding co. Peri Mauritius on which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) liability of ₹7,01,60,000/- was paid by the assessee-company in terms of provisions of Section 115O of the Act. Similar payments ... thus observed that wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company paying dividend distribution tax, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any. No such protection has been shown to be extended in the instant

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1139/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

assessee-company has paid dividend of ₹50,02,48,000/- to its holding co. Peri Mauritius on which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) liability of ₹7,01,60,000/- was paid by the assessee-company in terms of provisions of Section 115O of the Act. Similar payments ... thus observed that wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company paying dividend distribution tax, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any. No such protection has been shown to be extended in the instant

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1138/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

assessee-company has paid dividend of ₹50,02,48,000/- to its holding co. Peri Mauritius on which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) liability of ₹7,01,60,000/- was paid by the assessee-company in terms of provisions of Section 115O of the Act. Similar payments ... thus observed that wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company paying dividend distribution tax, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any. No such protection has been shown to be extended in the instant

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1137/DEL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

assessee-company has paid dividend of ₹50,02,48,000/- to its holding co. Peri Mauritius on which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) liability of ₹7,01,60,000/- was paid by the assessee-company in terms of provisions of Section 115O of the Act. Similar payments ... thus observed that wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company paying dividend distribution tax, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any. No such protection has been shown to be extended in the instant

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1136/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

assessee-company has paid dividend of ₹50,02,48,000/- to its holding co. Peri Mauritius on which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) liability of ₹7,01,60,000/- was paid by the assessee-company in terms of provisions of Section 115O of the Act. Similar payments ... thus observed that wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company paying dividend distribution tax, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any. No such protection has been shown to be extended in the instant

Ami Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Accordingly, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is deleted, and the assessee's claim is allowed in full

ITA 544/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.544/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. The Acit बनाम/ 701 To 710 Lilleria 1038 Circle-1(1)(1) Next To Zydex Office Vadodara V/S. Gotri Sevasi Road Vadodara – 390 020 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 12/06/2023 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2016-17 2 Facts Of The Case:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)

However, the AO rejected the submission of the assessee on the ground that it is only an arrangement to avoid dividend distribution tax and Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2016-17 4 deduction cannot be allowed under section 36 (1)(ii) of the Act. He also concluded ... introduced only to disallow the payment of commission or bonus if it is made to avoid the payment of tax on dividend, i.e. Dividend Distribution Tax. In assessee’s case the commission or bonus is paid to director for his services to the Company and company is able to justify

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 341/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

circumstances of the case, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ['the Ld. CIT(A)'] erred in rejecting the claim of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid by the Appellant amounting to Rs. 2,54,74,925. 2. That on the facts of the case ... perusal of the above grounds, we find that the common grievance of the assessee is that it is entitled to refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) allegedly paid by it to its shareholder namely, Koninklijke Philips N.V.. In the grounds it is also stated that since the shareholder

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 340/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

circumstances of the case, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ['the Ld. CIT(A)'] erred in rejecting the claim of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid by the Appellant amounting to Rs. 2,54,74,925. 2. That on the facts of the case ... perusal of the above grounds, we find that the common grievance of the assessee is that it is entitled to refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) allegedly paid by it to its shareholder namely, Koninklijke Philips N.V.. In the grounds it is also stated that since the shareholder

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 339/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

circumstances of the case, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ['the Ld. CIT(A)'] erred in rejecting the claim of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid by the Appellant amounting to Rs. 2,54,74,925. 2. That on the facts of the case ... perusal of the above grounds, we find that the common grievance of the assessee is that it is entitled to refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) allegedly paid by it to its shareholder namely, Koninklijke Philips N.V.. In the grounds it is also stated that since the shareholder

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 338/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

circumstances of the case, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ['the Ld. CIT(A)'] erred in rejecting the claim of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid by the Appellant amounting to Rs. 2,54,74,925. 2. That on the facts of the case ... perusal of the above grounds, we find that the common grievance of the assessee is that it is entitled to refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) allegedly paid by it to its shareholder namely, Koninklijke Philips N.V.. In the grounds it is also stated that since the shareholder

DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5848/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan: Aaaci1747H Vs. The Acit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5935/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dcit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan : Aaaci1747H Respondent) Appellant) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken Shah, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai Dated 27.06.2017 For

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

confirming the additions made by the TPO. Claim of Education and Secondary and Higher Education Cess as an allowable expenditure Re-computation of Dividend Distribution Tax ("DDT") liability on dividends paid to non-resident shareholders at beneficial rates as per applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and claim of refund

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5848/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 801A

Additional Claim of Education and Secondary and Higher Education Cess as Ground No.1 an allowable expenditure Additional Re-computation of Dividend Distribution Tax ("DDT") liability on Ground No.2 | dividends paid to non-resident shareholders at beneficial rates as per applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and claim of refund for excess

Deloitte & Touche Assurance & Enterprise Risk Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 342/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri SP. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 135(5)Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)

common in both these appeals, whereas in ITA No. 342/Hyd/2023, assessee is aggrieved against the denial of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the assessee by mistake. We, therefore, find it just and convenient to dispose of these two appeals, by way of this common order

Deloittee Tax Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 341/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri SP. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 135(5)Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)

common in both these appeals, whereas in ITA No. 342/Hyd/2023, assessee is aggrieved against the denial of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the assessee by mistake. We, therefore, find it just and convenient to dispose of these two appeals, by way of this common order

Transpek Industry Limited, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Ncome Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1080/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2020-21 Transpek Industry Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Lilleria 1038, Vs Income Tax Gotri Sevasi Road, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara-390021 Vadodara Gujarat Pan: Aaact8639B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26-10-2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-[National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)] [Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”], Which Upheld The Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Passed By The Cpc, Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

disallowance does not arise. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not directing the learned AO to give credit of Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs. 2,29,62,609/- paid by the appellant. Facts of the Case: 3. The Assessee filed its return of income for the assessment ... loss account, then the assessee may be granted appropriate relief after carrying out necessary verification. 14. Ground number 4 relates to credit of Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs.2,29,62,609/- paid by the appellant. The same is not pressed for the assessee, hence not adjudicated. Transpek Industry