“dividend distribution tax”

DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Total Energies Marketing India P Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S. Total Oil India P Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

seconded employees on account of non-deduction of tax at source. 03. The assessee has filed cross objection for refund of the excess dividend distribution tax paid on account of dividend paid to non-resident shareholder, viz. Total Marketing Services, France and Total Holding Asie, France. The grievance ... assessee is that the dividend distribution tax in relation to the dividend paid to non-resident shareholders ought to have been paid @ 10% in terms of Article 11 of the India – France tax treaty which has been further reduced to 5% in view of Para 7 of the Protocol between

DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Total Energies Marketing India P Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Total Oil India P Ltd.), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

seconded employees on account of non-deduction of tax at source. 03. The assessee has filed cross objection for refund of the excess dividend distribution tax paid on account of dividend paid to non-resident shareholder, viz. Total Marketing Services, France and Total Holding Asie, France. The grievance ... assessee is that the dividend distribution tax in relation to the dividend paid to non-resident shareholders ought to have been paid @ 10% in terms of Article 11 of the India – France tax treaty which has been further reduced to 5% in view of Para 7 of the Protocol between

L & T Technology Services Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blel & T Technology Services Limited V. Acit – Circle – 2(2)(1) L & T House, N.M. Marg Room No. 545, 5Th Floor Mumbai - 400001 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccl4310P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar

already formed part of the taxable income in India. 11. The Assessing Officer erred in ignoring a challan evidencing the payment of Dividend Distribution tax (DDT) amounting to Rs.8,30,52,816 and thereby granting credit of DDT of Rs.8,32,63,338 as against the credit claimed ... raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 52. With regard to Ground No. 11, this issue is relating to payment of dividend distribution tax amounting to ₹.8,30,52,816/- and granting credit of DDT of ₹.8,32,63,338/- as against the credit claimed by the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Group M Media (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are stand dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhco No. 137/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2011-12) Group M Media (India) Vs. Dcit-12(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 145, 1 St Floor, 8Th Floor, Commerz Aayakar Bhavan, International Business M.K. Road, Park, Oberoi Garden Mumbai-400020 City, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccm7365H Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-12(2)(2) Vs. Group M Media (India) Room No. 145, 1 St Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 8Th Floor, Commerz M.K. Road, International Business Mumbai-400020 Park, Oberoi Garden City, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccm7365H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Shri. Ganesh Rakh Date Of Hearing 27.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10 .2023

137/Mum/2021 M/s Group Media M (India) Pvt. Ltd. The ground no. 8 of the original additional grounds of appeal deals with the dividend distribution tax (DDT) paid by the Appellant to its Dutch shareholder, Berkeley Square Holdings BV, which is liable to tax as per India - Netherlands Treaty read with ... Counsel has not pressed these grounds of appeals therefore the same stand dismissed. 20. Additional Ground No. 8 Dividend distribution tax [DDT]. Paid to Dutch Shareholders :- The assessee had paid dividend to its Dutch shareholder Berkely Square holding BV. The assessee submitted that since there is MFN clause

Tech Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed and assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

assessee and accordingly, the ground is dismissed. 31. Through additional ground No.2, vide letter dated 28/01/2020, the assessee is contending that the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) to be restricted to the rate provided in the respective DTAA provisions. This issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Special

DCIT 22(3), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed and assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

assessee and accordingly, the ground is dismissed. 31. Through additional ground No.2, vide letter dated 28/01/2020, the assessee is contending that the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) to be restricted to the rate provided in the respective DTAA provisions. This issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Special

Ups Express Private Limited (Formerly Known As Ups Jetair Express Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT 3(1) (1) Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/ITO/NFAC-Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Ups Express Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Ups Jetair Dcit-3(1)(1) Express Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 6-A, Shyam Off Jvlr, Majas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Village, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai-400060 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu4322N Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2023

instead of assessment year 2018 – 19. Therefore the learned assessing officer in the computation is seated has not granted credit for payment of dividend distribution tax and accordingly interest was charged. Therefore, it is the claim of the assessee that the learned assessing officer may be directed to verify ... liability of dividend distribution tax including the date of payment and consequently allow credit for payment of dividend distribution tax in charge interest only up to the date of payment. 47. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the assessee has wrongly mentioned the assessment year therefore, there

Legrand Nederland B.V., Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax 3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelegrand Nederland B.V. V. Acit (Intl. Taxation) – 3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building 61/62, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai Kalpatru Square, Kondivita Road Off. Andheri Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaccl1156B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Prayas Jain Department Represented By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni

referred to in the section 115-O of the Act). The exemption was denied on the premise that Novateur India has not paid Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) and that dividend on account of capital reduction does not fall u/s. 115-O of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with the above order ... terms of Section10(34) of the Act. 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

The ACIT - 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

with the additional ground raised by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 with respect to applicability of the DTAA rate for dividend distribution tax. 054. For assessment year 2016 – 17 the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal by letter dated 1 September 2021 as under ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the dividend distribution tax (DDT) paid by the appellant on dividend distributed to its non- resident shareholders (i.e. Pfizer East India BV, Netherlands and John Wyeth brothers Ltd UK) or to be charged at the rate prescribed under

Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ACIT-14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

with the additional ground raised by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 with respect to applicability of the DTAA rate for dividend distribution tax. 054. For assessment year 2016 – 17 the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal by letter dated 1 September 2021 as under ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the dividend distribution tax (DDT) paid by the appellant on dividend distributed to its non- resident shareholders (i.e. Pfizer East India BV, Netherlands and John Wyeth brothers Ltd UK) or to be charged at the rate prescribed under

Pfizer Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

with the additional ground raised by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 with respect to applicability of the DTAA rate for dividend distribution tax. 054. For assessment year 2016 – 17 the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal by letter dated 1 September 2021 as under ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the dividend distribution tax (DDT) paid by the appellant on dividend distributed to its non- resident shareholders (i.e. Pfizer East India BV, Netherlands and John Wyeth brothers Ltd UK) or to be charged at the rate prescribed under

DCIT - 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

with the additional ground raised by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 with respect to applicability of the DTAA rate for dividend distribution tax. 054. For assessment year 2016 – 17 the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal by letter dated 1 September 2021 as under ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the dividend distribution tax (DDT) paid by the appellant on dividend distributed to its non- resident shareholders (i.e. Pfizer East India BV, Netherlands and John Wyeth brothers Ltd UK) or to be charged at the rate prescribed under

Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

Assessee has also filed an additional ground of appeal as per letter dated 18 June 2021 with respect to the applicability of Dividend Distribution Tax [ DDT] under section 115O of The Income Tax Act or lower rate of tax in case of Non-Resident Assessee who are eligible ... benefit of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [ DTAA] as under:- “on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the appellant on dividend distribution to its non- resident shareholders ought to have been charged at the rate prescribed under the Double

ACIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai vs. Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

Assessee has also filed an additional ground of appeal as per letter dated 18 June 2021 with respect to the applicability of Dividend Distribution Tax [ DDT] under section 115O of The Income Tax Act or lower rate of tax in case of Non-Resident Assessee who are eligible ... benefit of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [ DTAA] as under:- “on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the appellant on dividend distribution to its non- resident shareholders ought to have been charged at the rate prescribed under the Double

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Ground No.37 pertains to short grant of credit of taxes deducted at source and Ground No.39 relating to non-grant of credit for dividend distribution tax paid, the ld AR submitted that the assessee has filed a petition under section 154 before the assessing officer on 02nd January, 2019, which

Van Oord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy() & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Issue with regard to initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is premature at this stage hence dismissed. Rate applicable for Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) - Additional Ground 12. The assessee also has raised additional ground, which reads as under:- “The Appellant prays that the Dividend Distribution Tax („DDT‟) paid ... dividend should be applicable to taxation of dividend as per India Netherlands DTAA. The ld AR contended that accordingly the rate at which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid is in excess of the rate prescribed under DTAA. While doing so, the ld AR drew our attention to the decision

Dow Chemicals International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

addition of INR 6,960 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act should not have been made. 6. Refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT") paid 6.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim ... pressed. 11. The issue arising in ground No. 6, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (“DDT”) paid by the assessee. 12. In appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee raised this issue by way of additional ground and submitted