← 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

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 655/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Das
Section 115OSection 14A

Counsel for the assessee, vide letter dated 05.02.2021 raised additional grounds of appeal which are reproduced below: - “Ground No 4: Refund for excess Dividend Distribution Tax ("DDT") Paid 3 ITA NO. 655 & 749/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Asian Paints Ltd., On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... favour of the assessee. While holding so the Coordinate Bench held as under: - “076. The second additional ground is with respect to the dividend distribution tax. This ground arose in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2009 – 10 wherein the coordinate bench decided it is Under

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

M/S. Atria Convergence Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 1, Bangalore

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

ITA 2475/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194JSection 40

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. Page 21 of 26 16. what is also noticeable is that the entire or whole expenditure has been disallowed as if there was no expenditure

Wep Peripherals Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1905/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Exotica Housing & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 59 CCH 0141. m) He submitted that when the lender EPL has declared dividend and paid dividend distribution tax, there is no intention to avoid payment of dividend distribution tax u/s 115-O of the Act and provisions of section ... deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e).” 10.7 It is also brought on record that EPL has declared dividend and also paid dividend distribution tax. Thus, there is no question of intention to avoid payment of dividend distribution tax. Being so, on this reason also provision of section

Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 288/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 288/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 143/1, Amani Bellandur Khane Village, The Joint Prestige Excelsior, Commissioner Of Prestige Tech Park, Income-Tax Marathalli – Sarjapur Outer (Osd), Ring Road, Circle 6 (1)(1), Vs. Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaics9204M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi On 30.04.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 92C(3)Section 92D

Appellant and in considering an amount of INR 107,170,000 as against INR 171,254,000. 19. Non-grant of credit of dividend distribution tax 19.1. The NeAC erred in not granting credit for the dividend distribution taxes and levying interest, while computing the taxes in the final assessment ... certain deductions claimed under chapter VIA, short credit of self assessment and advance tax granted by the Ld.AO and non granting of dividend distribution tax credit to assessee. 25.1 We direct the Ld.AO to consider the claim in accordance with law having regard to the evidences filed by the assessee

Jp Morgan Funds, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2430/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(b)Section 250

nature of ‘dividend’ [as defined under section 2(22)(b) of the Act, Assessment Year: 2015-16 Page 2 of 5 on which dividend Distribution Tax had been discharged] as ‘Nil’ while computing the capital gains arising on the sale of these debentures, instead of treating the cost of acquisition

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

taxes aggregating to Rs.7.75 lacs. This shareholder is also noted to have declared dividend to its preference shareholders on which it had paid dividend distribution tax u/s 115-O of the Act. With regard to the source of source of funds, it is noted from the bank statement, that this ... taxes aggregating to Rs.8.91 lacs. This shareholder is also noted to have declared dividend to its preference shareholders on which it had paid dividend distribution tax u/s 115-O of the Act. With regard to the source of source of funds, it is noted from the bank statement

Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7907/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

taxes aggregating to Rs.7.75 lacs. This shareholder is also noted to have declared dividend to its preference shareholders on which it had paid dividend distribution tax u/s 115-O of the Act. With regard to the source of source of funds, it is noted from the bank statement, that this ... taxes aggregating to Rs.8.91 lacs. This shareholder is also noted to have declared dividend to its preference shareholders on which it had paid dividend distribution tax u/s 115-O of the Act. With regard to the source of source of funds, it is noted from the bank statement

Solvay Pharma India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 2671/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R
Section 115Section 145ASection 14A

appellant prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to allow deduction in respect of education cess on income-tax and on dividend distribution tax paid during the year. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant prays that the Assessing Officer ... directed to grant refund in respect of the dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-0 in excess of the rates prescribed under the relevant tax treaties.” 3. Keeping in view the fact that both the additional grounds raised by the assessee are legal one, which can be raised

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 301/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No.301/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Plot No.21 Bidadi Industrial Area, Circle –2, Ltu, Bidadi, Ramanagara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-562 109. Pan : Aabct 5590 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

relevant tax treaty. Without prejudice to the above 16. The learned AO / Hon' ble DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that Dividend Distribution Tax (`DDT') under section 115-0 of the Act, in case of non-resident shareholders, should be restricted to concessional tax rate on dividends ... case of non-resident shareholder tax, which is imposed on the shareholder). In view of the above discussions, we hold that the dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividends but is a tax imposed on the company declaring the dividends and hence outside the ambit of the tax

M/S. Ge Be Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2615/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92D

appeal. 23. That on the facts and in the circumstances (Attie case, the learned AO ought to have restricted the levy of the dividend distribution tax on the dividend distributed to GE Mauritius Ltd to 5% in terms of Article 10 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (`DTAA') between India ... No.2615/Bang/2019 M/s. GE BE Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 16 of 24 12. With regard to ground No.23: Additional Ground relating to dividend distribution tax ("DDT") raised by the Appellant vide application dated 23.11.2021: 23. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO ought

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R
Section 143(3)

grievance of the assessee may get redressed at that stage. 4. The second issue relates to the demand raised by the AO towards Dividend distribution tax. It is the submission of the assessee that the AO has raised demand towards Dividend Distribution Tax upon the assessee, without any basis. According

Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer/Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have restricted the levy of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT), on the dividend paid to M/s Skytanking Holding Gmbh, Germany, to 10 percent in terms of Article 10 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between ... additional ground, it has been stated that Assessee has applied the rate @ 16.995% under section 115- O of the Act while discharging its Dividend Distribution Tax [DDT] liability. As per India – Germany DTAA, the rate of tax that India can charge (irrespective of whether it is tax on the shareholder

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer/Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have restricted the levy of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT), on the dividend paid to M/s Skytanking Holding Gmbh, Germany, to 10 percent in terms of Article 10 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between ... additional ground, it has been stated that Assessee has applied the rate @ 16.995% under section 115- O of the Act while discharging its Dividend Distribution Tax [DDT] liability. As per India – Germany DTAA, the rate of tax that India can charge (irrespective of whether it is tax on the shareholder

M/S Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer/Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have restricted the levy of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT), on the dividend paid to M/s Skytanking Holding Gmbh, Germany, to 10 percent in terms of Article 10 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between ... additional ground, it has been stated that Assessee has applied the rate @ 16.995% under section 115- O of the Act while discharging its Dividend Distribution Tax [DDT] liability. As per India – Germany DTAA, the rate of tax that India can charge (irrespective of whether it is tax on the shareholder

M/S. Usv Private Limited (Formerly Known As Usv Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1) (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 32), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4845/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4845 & 4846/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Usv Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Cen. Cir – 5(1), (Erstwhile Acit Cc 32) (Knows As Usv Ltd.) 19Th Floor, Air India बिधम/ Arvind Vithal Gandhi Building, Nariman Point, Chowk, B.S.D. Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Govandi, Mumbai-400 088 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacu-1366-N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Khanjan Visaria, Ld. Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Sunil Kumar Jha, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: 1. The Assessee Has Filed The Captioned Appeals Challenging The Order Dated 27.04.2017 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Pertaining To Ay 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Khanjan Visaria, LdFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Jha, Ld

dated 29th 2. April 2021 wherein assessee seeks for withdrawal of appeals on the ground of deduction of education cess at 3% on dividend distribution tax. As per the Finance Bill, 2022 has specified education cess /secondary and higher education cess to include in the term ‘Tax’, the same

Kyra Investments, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Circle-17(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1262/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1262/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Kyra Investments, 8/36, Grants Building, Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aagfk-3932-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -17(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Swati Banwat ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Azhar Zain सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms. Swati BanwatFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain

operative Bank. In the original return of income the assessee had claimed dividend income as exempt. Since dividend was not subject to Dividend Distribution Tax, in the revised return the assessee has shown dividend income as Income from Business. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have erred in holding ... operative Bank. The assessee has not claimed dividend income as exempt from tax. Since, the said dividend income was not subject to Dividend Distribution Tax 5 the assessee has offered dividend income to tax as Business Income. The Assessing Officer has held the same as ‘Income from Other Sources’. Taking

DCIT Cent Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1669/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

against the AO’s action of not considering the claim of Education Cess of Rs. 1,42,88,177/- on income tax and Dividend Distribution Tax by ignoring judgments of the Hon’ble High Courts in which Education cess was not allowed as deduction.” 5. The brief facts

DCIT Cent Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1668/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

against the AO’s action of not considering the claim of Education Cess of Rs. 1,42,88,177/- on income tax and Dividend Distribution Tax by ignoring judgments of the Hon’ble High Courts in which Education cess was not allowed as deduction.” 5. The brief facts