← 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

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 495/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

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

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 494/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

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

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

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

DCIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Projects Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 463/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), M/S Tata Projects Limited, Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Floor, 2, 3 & 4 One Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Boulevard, Lake Boulevard Mumbai-400020. Street Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaact 4119 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Mr. Biswananth Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 43BSection 86

Short granting of TDS credit amounting to Rs.5,93,91,829/-. e. Not allowing credit of Dividend Distribution tax paid amounting to Rs.3,64,67,086/-. P a g e | 4 M/s Tata Projects Ltd. ITA No. 463 and CO No. 37/Mum/2023 3.1 Thereafter, the case of the assessee

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 1 (3)92), Mumbai

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

ITA 7807/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

proposed an adjustment of Rs.3,79,01,11,500/ adjustment of Rs.3,79,01,11,500/- on account of short recovery of share dividend distribution tax u/s account of short recovery of share dividend distribution account of short recovery of share dividend distribution 115A of the Act. The Ld. Assessing

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

ITA 3088/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, D.R
Section 115Section 250Section 37(1)

allow deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') in respect of education cess paid on the amount of dividend distribution tax as per section 115-0 of the Act during the year, while computing the total income. Refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid ... Cross objections No.3 of Assessee 16. The assessee by filing application for raising additional ground in its cross objection that “Refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid - The Learned AO and CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that dividend paid by Group M India to its Singapore shareholder, Group

Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 2968/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.2968/Mum/2015 (A.Y.2008-09) Ambuja Cement Ltd Vs. Acit-Ltu (Formerly Known As 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Gurjrat Ambuja Cements World Trade Centre, Ltd.) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- Elegant Business Part, 400005 Midc Cross Road B, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacg0569P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Chaitanya D Joshi Respondent By : Shri Manoj Mishra Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Were Adjudicated Vide Combined Order Of The Vide Itat No. 2968/Mum/2015 & 1665/Mum/2019 On 07.11.2022. 2. Thereafter The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application Vide Ma No. 381/Mum/2022 & Ma 382/Mum/2022 & Submitted That Additional Grounds Raised Vide Separate Application Dated 05.01.2018 Was Remained To The Adjudicated By The Tribunal In The Above Referred Order Dated 07.11.2022. P A G E | 2 Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs Acit

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya D JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra
Section 115

India Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Agreement, that the dividend declared by the appellant to Holderind Investment Ltd., Manutius is liable to dividend distribution tax at the rate of 5 percent. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw all or any of the grounds of appeal ... before the time of hearing. 5. The additional grounds of appeal of the assessee is pertained to the applicability of dividend distribution tax at the rate of 5% to the dividend declared by the assessee to Holderind Investment Ltd., Mauritius and the assessee sought the benefit of article

Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 6375/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.2968/Mum/2015 (A.Y.2008-09) Ambuja Cement Ltd Vs. Acit-Ltu (Formerly Known As 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Gurjrat Ambuja Cements World Trade Centre, Ltd.) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- Elegant Business Part, 400005 Midc Cross Road B, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacg0569P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Chaitanya D Joshi Respondent By : Shri Manoj Mishra Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Were Adjudicated Vide Combined Order Of The Vide Itat No. 2968/Mum/2015 & 1665/Mum/2019 On 07.11.2022. 2. Thereafter The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application Vide Ma No. 381/Mum/2022 & Ma 382/Mum/2022 & Submitted That Additional Grounds Raised Vide Separate Application Dated 05.01.2018 Was Remained To The Adjudicated By The Tribunal In The Above Referred Order Dated 07.11.2022. P A G E | 2 Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs Acit

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya D JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra
Section 115

India Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Agreement, that the dividend declared by the appellant to Holderind Investment Ltd., Manutius is liable to dividend distribution tax at the rate of 5 percent. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw all or any of the grounds of appeal ... before the time of hearing. 5. The additional grounds of appeal of the assessee is pertained to the applicability of dividend distribution tax at the rate of 5% to the dividend declared by the assessee to Holderind Investment Ltd., Mauritius and the assessee sought the benefit of article

DCIT Circle 8(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. . Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1638/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA Nos. No. 1637 & 1638/M/2021 &Ors. ITA Nos. No. 1637 & 1638/M/2021 &Ors. 2. Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs. 2,99,38,207/ Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs. 2,99,38,207/ Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax ... should be In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law it should be held that the dividend distribution tax paid us 115 held that the dividend distribution tax paid us 115-0 of the Act by 0 of the Act by the the the appellant appellant appellant

DCIT, Cir 8(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1637/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA Nos. No. 1637 & 1638/M/2021 &Ors. ITA Nos. No. 1637 & 1638/M/2021 &Ors. 2. Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs. 2,99,38,207/ Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs. 2,99,38,207/ Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax ... should be In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law it should be held that the dividend distribution tax paid us 115 held that the dividend distribution tax paid us 115-0 of the Act by 0 of the Act by the the the appellant appellant appellant

Ogilvy and Mather P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT-8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1326/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA Nos. No. 1637 & 1638/M/2021 &Ors. ITA Nos. No. 1637 & 1638/M/2021 &Ors. 2. Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs. 2,99,38,207/ Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs. 2,99,38,207/ Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax ... should be In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law it should be held that the dividend distribution tax paid us 115 held that the dividend distribution tax paid us 115-0 of the Act by 0 of the Act by the the the appellant appellant appellant

Ogily and Mather P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asst. CIT -8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1325/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA Nos. No. 1637 & 1638/M/2021 &Ors. ITA Nos. No. 1637 & 1638/M/2021 &Ors. 2. Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs. 2,99,38,207/ Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs. 2,99,38,207/ Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax ... should be In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law it should be held that the dividend distribution tax paid us 115 held that the dividend distribution tax paid us 115-0 of the Act by 0 of the Act by the the the appellant appellant appellant

Ogilvy and Mather P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asst. CIT-8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1324/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA Nos. No. 1637 & 1638/M/2021 &Ors. ITA Nos. No. 1637 & 1638/M/2021 &Ors. 2. Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs. 2,99,38,207/ Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs. 2,99,38,207/ Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax ... should be In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law it should be held that the dividend distribution tax paid us 115 held that the dividend distribution tax paid us 115-0 of the Act by 0 of the Act by the the the appellant appellant appellant

Catvition Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2271/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Gaur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 115OSection 143(3)

under: “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law by raising a demand of Rs.15,87,620/- towards dividend distribution tax under section 115O for which the requisite payment was made on time and proof of payment was submited. 2. On the facts and circumstances ... challan.” 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the assessee submitted that the demand has been raised by the Assessing Officer towards dividend distribution tax amounting to Rs.15,87,620/- for Assessment Year 2018-19 in question. In this context, the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer

Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Bulandshahr vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 914/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Bulandshahr Vs Dcit, C/O Kashyap & Co., Circle-3(1), 114, Citi Centre, Bulandshahr. Bb Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh – 250001. Pan: Aaaaz0005B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.S. Kashyap, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Anant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.914/Del/2021 For Ay 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Appeal No.358717431080118 Dated 31.07.2019 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 22.12.2017 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-3(1), Bulandshahr (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’).

For Appellant: Shri P.S. Kashyap, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Anant, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115Section 115OSection 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

that the exemption u/s 10(34) of the Act could be claimed by the assessee only when the amount has been subjected to dividend distribution tax in the hands of the payer in terms of section 115-O of the Act. The ld. AR argued that this issue was decided ... observed by the Assessing Officer that the IFFCO from whom dividend was received was not a company but was a cooperative society and dividend distribution tax had not been deducted by IFFCO. It was held by the Assessing Officer that the dividend income was not exempt in the hands

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 519/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalajanta Pharma Ltd. 98, Charkop, Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aaaca5579P ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

appellant to make a claim subsequently during the course of assessment proceedings or the appellate proceedings. V. Disallowance of Education Cess on Dividend Distribution Tax Rs. 42, 23,186/- u/s. 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act: 5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... education cess u/s. 40a(ii) amounting to Rs 3,50,04,768/- vide letter dated 28-06-2019 and education cess on dividend distribution tax amounting to Rs 42,23,186/- u/s. 40(a)(ii). AO assessed the income on original return filed u/s. 139(1). Aggrieved with this order

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

appellant Company prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to allow deduction in respect of education cess paid on the amount of dividend distribution tax as per section 115-0 paid during the year. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional grounds of appeal

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

appellant Company prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to allow deduction in respect of education cess paid on the amount of dividend distribution tax as per section 115-0 paid during the year. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional grounds of appeal

Lord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

ITA 424/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaillord India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited (F Ormer Ly Know N A S L Ord Of Income-Tax, Circle- India C Hem Ica L Pr Od Uct S Pv T. Lt D. ) 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, A/401-404, 215 – Atrium Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri – Kurla M.K. Road, Road Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0785H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Dr. Samual Pitta Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 26.02.2015 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Transfer Pricing - Availing Of Intra-Group Services 1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Acit/ Drp Erred In Determining The Arm'S Length Price In Relation To The International Transaction Relating To The Availing Of Group Benefit Services/ Technical Service Management Services (Hereinafter Referred To As "Intra-Group Services") Of Rs.1,14,87,092 To Be Rs. 22,97,418/-, Thus Making An Adjustment Of Rs.91,89,674/- & Thereby Disregarding The Fact That The Appellant Had Received The Services For The Purposes Of Its Business. In Doing So, The Learned Acit/ Drp Grossly Erred By Not Appreciating The Commercial Wisdom/ Expediency Of The Appellant

For Appellant: M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Dr. Samual Pitta
Section 40

source. 3.4 The learned ACIT/ DRP erred in not considering the submissions of the appellant in the correct perspective. 4. Incorrect computation of Dividend Distribution tax (DDT) and related interest and credit for DDT paid not granted P a g e | 4 Lord India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle

Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. Addl.CIT, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

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

ITA 504/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80I

Senior Advocate for the assessee submits that during the relevant period, the assessee declared dividend of Rs. 41.86 lacs and paid dividend distribution tax within statutory period prescribed under Section 115-O(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied interest of Rs. 708361/- under Section 115P and failed ... grant credit of dividend distribution tax. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by holding that the assessee failed to furnish evidence that due tax were paid on 29/09/2010. The ld. Senior Advocate for the assessee submits that dividend distribution tax was paid within statutory time period

Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. ACIT, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

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

ITA 503/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80I

Senior Advocate for the assessee submits that during the relevant period, the assessee declared dividend of Rs. 41.86 lacs and paid dividend distribution tax within statutory period prescribed under Section 115-O(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied interest of Rs. 708361/- under Section 115P and failed ... grant credit of dividend distribution tax. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by holding that the assessee failed to furnish evidence that due tax were paid on 29/09/2010. The ld. Senior Advocate for the assessee submits that dividend distribution tax was paid within statutory time period