← 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

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1646/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 80Section 801B(9)Section 80I

circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being ... raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1645/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 80Section 801B(9)Section 80I

circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being ... raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1644/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 80Section 801B(9)Section 80I

circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being ... raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being

Hindustan Colas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1643/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 80Section 801B(9)Section 80I

circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being ... raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1642/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 80Section 801B(9)Section 80I

circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being ... raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1641/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 80Section 801B(9)Section 80I

circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being ... raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1640/MUM/2022[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 80Section 801B(9)Section 80I

circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being ... raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being

M/S Sicagen India Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Circle 6(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 271/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. C.P. Priya (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

loss to Rs.4.93 Lacs since interest was offered less. This order was rectified on 25.06.2020 at assessee’s request to grant credit of dividend distribution tax. ITA No.271 /Chny/2022 2. Subsequently, upon perusal of case records, Ld. Pr. CIT held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial since the disallowance

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Astrazenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 82/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that it is eligible for refund of the excess Dividend Distribution Tax paid by the Appellant.” Grounds 4 to 8 (Corporate Tax Issues – Disallowances / Additions) 14. During the relevant financial year, the assessee had incurred the following ... dismiss the same. Ground 14 to 14.3 (Additional Ground) 21. The above ground relates to the claim of the assessee that dividend distribution tax should be confined to the rate as per DTAA for dividend distributed to non-resident assessee. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has raised

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 170/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that it is eligible for refund of the excess Dividend Distribution Tax paid by the Appellant.” Grounds 4 to 8 (Corporate Tax Issues – Disallowances / Additions) 14. During the relevant financial year, the assessee had incurred the following ... dismiss the same. Ground 14 to 14.3 (Additional Ground) 21. The above ground relates to the claim of the assessee that dividend distribution tax should be confined to the rate as per DTAA for dividend distributed to non-resident assessee. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has raised

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 2550/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 45

This income has to be paid in future out of the accumulated profits. Presuming that at the time the dividend distribution, dividend distribution tax is duly deducted by M/S. Ensource Consulting Private Limited, dividend may be claimed as exempt by the investor (i.e., the assessee). According to the AO, loan

M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(4), Banglaoore

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

ITA 2332/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 45

This income has to be paid in future out of the accumulated profits. Presuming that at the time the dividend distribution, dividend distribution tax is duly deducted by M/S. Ensource Consulting Private Limited, dividend may be claimed as exempt by the investor (i.e., the assessee). According to the AO, loan

M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2243/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92C

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. IT(TP)A No.2243/Bang/2019 Page 19 of 24 16. what is also noticeable is that the entire or whole expenditure has been disallowed

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

Disallowance of expenditure incurred towards shifting of plant in Goa 4. The assessee also raised additional grounds with regard to applicability of Dividend Distribution Tax [DDT] rate as per Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act] or DTAA and also with regard to Education Cess & Higher Secondary Education Cess. The additional

Faith Finsock P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 12(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1916/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyalfaith Finstock Pvt. Ltd. 214, Linkway Estate Premises Chs Ltd. Chincholi Bunder, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aaacf7046E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-12(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Kavita Kaushik Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

Further appellant has claimed dividend income of Rs.27,13,842/- as exempt income u/s.10(34) , being dividend received from Indian company on which Dividend Distribution Tax is paid. AO without giving an opportunity to the appellant brought the entire dividend of Rs.27,13,842/- to tax as income from business

Alia Premedia Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7814/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Bhaumik GodaFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 3Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37Section 391

that by not paying this sum as dividend to the shareholder (Mr. Sethunath Padnanabhan in this case) the assesse company is avoiding the dividend distribution tax @ 15%. Thus, it is evident that there is the tax avoidance by entering into this transaction.” 19. Considering the order of the AO, submission

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(2), Bangalore

ITA 1358/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

issues in grounds raised for the assessment year 2010-11 is listed below:- (i) Ground No.1 – General. (ii) Ground No. 2 – Levy of Dividend Distribution Tax [DDT] on share redemption. (iii) Ground Nos. 3 to 5 – Valuation methodology of preference shares. (iv) Ground No.6 – Consideration for redemption does not constitute

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(4), Bangalore

ITA 1357/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

issues in grounds raised for the assessment year 2010-11 is listed below:- (i) Ground No.1 – General. (ii) Ground No. 2 – Levy of Dividend Distribution Tax [DDT] on share redemption. (iii) Ground Nos. 3 to 5 – Valuation methodology of preference shares. (iv) Ground No.6 – Consideration for redemption does not constitute

Greaves Cotton Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7742/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.7742/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2010-11) Greaves Cotton Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Motilal Oswal Tower, Junction Of Gokhale & Sayani Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025. Pan: Aaacg-2062-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(3), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Smt. Aarti Vissanji, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkari, Sr.A.R सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Smt. Aarti Vissanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vranda U. Matkari, Sr.A.R
Section 10(54)Section 115OSection 143(3)Section 14A

subsidiary M/s.Greaves Leasing Finance Ltd. under the provisions of section 115O(1A)(i)(a). The subsidiary of the assessee had already paid dividend distribution tax on the dividend paid to the assessee. The ld.Counsel for the assessee referred to the challan at pages 84 and 85 of the paper book

Acira Consultancy Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1274/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 1275/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2015-16) Acira Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 511/C, 6Th Floor, Sunshine Chs Ltd. Off. Chandivli Farm, Raheja Vihar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. Pan: Aaica9489N ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-5(1)(4), Room No. 569, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. V.G. Ginde, Advocate With Sh. Kumar Kale, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Sh. V.G. Ginde, Advocate with Sh. Kumar Kale, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr-DR
Section 10(34)Section 14A

dividend income should be allowed to the assessee. The ld. AR further submitted that the dividend is already subject to dividend distribution tax under section 115O of the Act in the hands of the company declaring such dividend, hence, taxing the same dividend in the hands of the assessee would