“dividend distribution tax”

M/S Mafatlal Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

strictly in legal sense, a shareholder has no control and cannot insist on payment of dividend. When declared, it is subjected to dividend distribution tax. 16. what is also noticeable is that the entire or whole expenditure has been disallowed as if there was no expenditure incurred by the respondent

Skf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer ('AO') ought to have held that the rate of dividend distribution tax (DDT) in respect of dividend paid by Appellant's to its parent company, AB SKF and to its shareholder, SKF Forvaltning Ltd, who are tax ... First Additional Ground [Ground No. 5 & 6] raised by the Appellant vide Letter dated 03/12/2018 pertains to the rate of dividend distribution tax applicable to the dividend distributor by the Appellant to its shareholders. The Appellant had claimed that the benefit of tax treaty rates as applicable to the shareholders

Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

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

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer ought to have held that the levy of the dividend distribution tax u/s 115-O of the Income-tax Act 1961, on payment of the dividend to non-resident shareholders should be at the rate specified ... reference to such dividend income. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the sovereign's prerogative to extend the treaty protection to domestic companies paying dividend distribution tax through the mechanism of DTAAs. Thus, wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

paid on income tax liability should be allowed as deduction; and thereby grossly violating the judicial discipline. Now-grant of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid 27. Erred in rejecting the additional claim filed for DDT refund claim of Rs.294,84,70,521 towards excess DDT paid ... Therefore, ground of appeal of the assesse from 24 to 26 are dismissed. Ground No. 27 & 28: 14. The assesse has claimed that dividend distribution tax ought to be taxed at the rate prescribed under the respective Double Tax Avoidance Agreement. In view of the decision of special bench

Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1464/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400705. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.586/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ National Faceless Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Assessment Centre, Delhi. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1576/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit/Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Mumbai. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0126H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Sheth/Ms. Urvi Mehta/Abdulkadir Jawadwala Revenue By: Shri Aditya M Rai (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023

under: - “15. The Ld. AO has erred in raising a demand of Rs.19,54,33,412/- on account of Dividend Distribution tax (DDT) payable. The Ld. AO erred in not granting credit for DDT of Rs.19,54,33,412/- which is already paid by the appellant and details of which ... will not survive and be deleted.” 16. The main grievance of the assessee are against the action of AO not giving credit for Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) of Rs.19,54,33,412/- which has already been paid by assessee and details of which has been furnished in the return

M/S. Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1464/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400705. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.586/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ National Faceless Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Assessment Centre, Delhi. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1576/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit/Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Mumbai. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0126H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Sheth/Ms. Urvi Mehta/Abdulkadir Jawadwala Revenue By: Shri Aditya M Rai (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023

under: - “15. The Ld. AO has erred in raising a demand of Rs.19,54,33,412/- on account of Dividend Distribution tax (DDT) payable. The Ld. AO erred in not granting credit for DDT of Rs.19,54,33,412/- which is already paid by the appellant and details of which ... will not survive and be deleted.” 16. The main grievance of the assessee are against the action of AO not giving credit for Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) of Rs.19,54,33,412/- which has already been paid by assessee and details of which has been furnished in the return

Standard Chartered Capital Limited (Formerly Known As Standard Chartered Investments and Loans (India) Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

earning exempt dividend income. Additional Ground Of Appeal Additional Ground No 2: Application of India-UK tax treaty rate for dividends while determining Dividend Distribution Tax Liability (DDT) of the Appellant 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

India Pvt. Ltd. Cess aggregating to Rs.67,64,120/- while computing tax liability for the captioned year. B2. GRANT OF REFUND OF EXCESSIVE DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING THE BENEFICIAL PROVSION OF DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND FINLAND RS.3 ... Addl, C.I.T [ITA No.7075/DEL/2017]. 4. In view of the above, the learned DCTT be directed to grant the fund of the excessive Dividend Distribution Tax paid by the Appellant of Rs.3,09,90,098/-.” “Additional Grounds of A.Y. 2012-13 In the above matter, the Appellant begs before the Honourable

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

India Pvt. Ltd. Cess aggregating to Rs.67,64,120/- while computing tax liability for the captioned year. B2. GRANT OF REFUND OF EXCESSIVE DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING THE BENEFICIAL PROVSION OF DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND FINLAND RS.3 ... Addl, C.I.T [ITA No.7075/DEL/2017]. 4. In view of the above, the learned DCTT be directed to grant the fund of the excessive Dividend Distribution Tax paid by the Appellant of Rs.3,09,90,098/-.” “Additional Grounds of A.Y. 2012-13 In the above matter, the Appellant begs before the Honourable

Grindwelll Nortan Ltd, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary: A.Y : 2019-20

issues in this appeal :- a) Disallowance of employees contribution to Provident Fund (ground nos. 1 to 5); b) Non-granting of credit of Dividend Distribution Tax (ground nos. 6 & 7); 2 Grindwell Norton Limited c) Non-granting of refund on account of excess payment of Dividend Distribution Tax (ground ... ground no. 10) 2. At the time of hearing, assessee did not press ground nos. 6 & 7 relating to claim of credit of Dividend Distribution Tax paid by the assessee. Accordingly, the said grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 3. As regards disallowance of employees contribution to Provident Fund

Standard Chartered Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

both the segments under consideration. 16. The learned AR has stated that assessee has raised an additional ground challenging the levy of dividend distribution tax. He submitted that the assessee does not want to press the same. Accordingly the said ground is dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal filed

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Blue Dart Express Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

shareholders in view of the provisions of Section 10(34) r.w.s.115(0) of the Act?" 2. "Whether as per Law, the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the assessee on dividend distributed is tax paid on the income of share-holders from such dividend?" 3. "Whether the Dividend Distribution Tax ... computed disallowance of Rs.9,06,719/- On the second disputed issue, the assessee has filed submissions vide letter dated 12.12.2018 mentioning that the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) on dividend declared and paid by the Blue Dart to DHL Singapore would be circumscribed to 10% under the India-Singapore DTTA. Since

M/S Tricon Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021 M/S Tricon Global Services Dy. Cit, Cpc Private Limited, Bengaluru-560100 701, Dlh Park, S.V. Road, Off Vs. Mtnl, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aabco 0321 L Appellant Respondent

circumstances of the case and in law, Learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of appellant to consider lower rate of dividend distribution tax M/s Tricon Global Services Pvt. Ltd. M/s Tricon Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 2 (DDT) in respect of dividend paid by Appellant ... refund of dividend original return of income. The claim of refund of dividend original return of income. The claim of refund of dividend distribution tax made in revised return made in revised return was rejected by the Ld. was rejected by the Ld. Central Processing Centre, Bangalore (CPC) Central Processing

Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited (Formerly Known As Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Dewan Income-Tax Housing Finance Corporation Room No. 1927, Limited) 19 Th Floor, 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Vs. Air India Building, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Nariman Point, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 021 S.O. Mumbai Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd1977A

234C be deleted or appropriately reduced. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I. II AND III, GROUND NO. X: NON-GRANTING OF CREDIT OF DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX (DDT) PAID AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,25,31,557/- AND LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 115P AMOUNTING

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Axis Capital Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit-3(1)(1) M/S. Axis Capital Limited Mumbai Vs. Axis House, P. B. Marg, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No. Aaacu 8367 M (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajnikant V. Chaniyari : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2023

Axis Capital Limited education cess during the impugned year, which was incurred by the assessee as an additional liability for education cess on dividend distribution tax (DDT). The assessee contends that it had paid TDS and advance tax along with DDT and had computed Rs.2,06,11,817/- towards education

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

assessee and taking appropriate decision. 8. Next issue relates to the interest charged under section 115P of the Act for delayed payment of dividend distribution tax (DDT). The Learned AR submitted that the assessee has paid two types of dividend during the year under consideration, i.e., Dividend on equity shares ... declared on 20.7.2018 and dividend on preference shares was declared on 27.3.2019. He submitted that the assessee has paid dividend distribution tax within the 14 days from the date of declaration of dividends on both the occasions. However, the CPC has charged interest under section 115P