← 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

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 1667/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

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

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

allowed for statistical purposes. M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., 6.4. The assessee had raised yet another additional ground in respect of rate of dividend distribution tax of dividend paid to overseas shareholders. According to assessee, this rate of dividend distribution tax should be restricted to rate prescribed in the DTAA

Aarti Industrial Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose and appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3695/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bledcit – 15(1)(1) V. M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., Room No. 470, 4Th Floor 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 145/Mum/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita.No. 3583/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15)] M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., V. Dcit – 15(1)(1) 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Room No. 470, 4Th Floor Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Ms. Shailaja Rai & Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80

ought to have allowed deduction for the cess paid by the Appellant on income-tax and dividend distribution tax based on the following aspects: i. the said cess is a revenue expenditure; ii. the said cess is not a rate or tax debarred by section

Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 699/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA
Section 144C

additional evidence filed on September 10, 2015. [corresponding to Ground 7] 14. The learned AO erred in not granting credit to the Dividend Distribution Tax paid by the Company amounting to INR 2,76,16,230 and in charging interest under section Page

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 548/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA
Section 144C

additional evidence filed on September 10, 2015. [corresponding to Ground 7] 14. The learned AO erred in not granting credit to the Dividend Distribution Tax paid by the Company amounting to INR 2,76,16,230 and in charging interest under section Page

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 1

only as an appropriation of taxable profit. In the case of payment of dividend, the assessee will also have to pay Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT). The above being the purpose behind the provisions of section 36(1)(iiv) of the Act, let us examine the facts in the present case

Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 525/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing officer/Commissioner of Income tax (appeals) ought to have restricted the levy of Dividend Distribution Tax (“DDT”), on the dividend paid to M/s Texas Instruments Incorporated, USA, to 15 percent in terms of Article 10 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ... Income tax Act, 1961.” 4.1 In this additional ground, the assessee has raised a legal issue contending that the dividend distribution tax payable on the dividend amount paid to its A.E. in USA should be restricted to the rate prescribed under DTAA. It is submitted that this is a purely

M/S Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 275/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing officer/Commissioner of Income tax (appeals) ought to have restricted the levy of Dividend Distribution Tax (“DDT”), on the dividend paid to M/s Texas Instruments Incorporated, USA, to 15 percent in terms of Article 10 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ... Income tax Act, 1961.” 4.1 In this additional ground, the assessee has raised a legal issue contending that the dividend distribution tax payable on the dividend amount paid to its A.E. in USA should be restricted to the rate prescribed under DTAA. It is submitted that this is a purely

Piem Hotels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the additional ground no

ITA 4638/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं.4638/मुं/2018 िन.व.2013-14) आ.अ.सं.4639/मुं/2018 िन.व.2012-13) Piem Hotels Limited Taj, 90, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaacp8376M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit- 3(2)(2), Mumbai. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Gunjan Kakkad, Ar "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are In Second Round Of Hearing Before The Tribunal. The Aforesaid Appeals By The Assessee Were Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 22.04.2021. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application (Ma) No. 185/M/2021 In Ita No. 4639/Mum/2018 & M.A. No. 186/Mum/2021 In Ita No. 4638/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjan Kakkad, ARFor Respondent: Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. DR

expense while computing the taxable income. 2. The Appellate prays that the liability for education cess amounting to Rs. 8,10,101/- on dividend distribution tax ought to be allowed as tax deductible expense while computing the taxable income.” 3. The additional ground no.2 relating to “Education Cess on Dividend

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri
Section 14ASection 35

appeal, by letter dated 5 February 2021, assessee raised two additional grounds of appeal as Under:- Ground number 6:- refund for excess dividend distribution tax (DDT) paid on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant submits that ITA No.4675 & 3290/Mum/2015 Asian Paints ... officer to determine the deductibility of the same in accordance with the law. 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

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

ITA 6693/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 28Section 37

considered view that AO/CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the deduction for education cess on income-tax, dividend distribution tax and fringe benefit tax for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 in computing the total income under normal provisions of the Act, consequently ordered to be deleted. Hence, Ground

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

Income filed in India and the additional Foreign Tax Credit that the Appellant is entitled to, is enclosed in Exhibit A. B. Dividend Distribution Tax 8. The Appellant is engaged in the business of rendering Software Development Services to its Group companies and third parties. The Appellant is a wholly ... During Assessment Year 2011-12, the Appellant declared final dividend of Rs 101,82,71,680 on 2 June 2010. The Appellant paid dividend distribution tax of Rs 16,91,22,198 on 9 June 2010 at the rate of 16.6088% by applying the provisions of section

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

Income filed in India and the additional Foreign Tax Credit that the Appellant is entitled to, is enclosed in Exhibit A. B. Dividend Distribution Tax 8. The Appellant is engaged in the business of rendering Software Development Services to its Group companies and third parties. The Appellant is a wholly ... During Assessment Year 2011-12, the Appellant declared final dividend of Rs 101,82,71,680 on 2 June 2010. The Appellant paid dividend distribution tax of Rs 16,91,22,198 on 9 June 2010 at the rate of 16.6088% by applying the provisions of section

Excel Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. The CIT -CC-6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 238/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleexcel Industries Ltd Vs. The Cit-Cc 6(3) 184-87, Excel Estate, 19Th Floor, Air India Sv Road, Jogeshwari Bldg, Nariman Point, (West)Mumbai – 400102 Mumbai – 400 021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace2488F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Kirit Kamdar. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Ajay Kumar. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs. 1,00,50,000/- Out Of Interest Paid Attributable To Loan To A Subsidiary. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Levying An Amount Of Rs. 5,42,910/- On Account Excel Industries Ltd, Mumbai. Of Interest U/S 115P For Dividend Distributed Under Section 115-O, For Which Dividend Distribution Tax Had Already Been Paid. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground On Additions Made To Book Profits U/S 115Jb.

For Appellant: Mr.Kirit Kamdar. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Ajay Kumar. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

account Excel Industries Ltd, Mumbai. of interest u/s 115P for dividend distributed under section 115-O, for which dividend distribution tax had already been paid. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground on additions ... erred in confirming the action of the A.O in levying interest u/sec115P of the Act of Rs. 5,42,910/- on dividend distribution tax paid. In respect of additions made by the A.O in calculation of Book Profits u/sec 115JB of the Act the CIT(A) has not adjudicated

Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4771/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 234DSection 250(6)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

Delhi Tribunal in case of Sicpa India Private Ltd vs., Addl. CIT ITA Nos.704/Kol/2015 and 1586/Kol/2016 held that education cess on income-tax, dividend distribution tax and fringe benefit tax is not a disallowable expenditure under section 40(a)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 having been expressly excluded from

ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi vs. Pc Jewellers Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6650/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(X)Section 40

facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent wishes to lodge claim for deduction of Education Cess on income tax and dividend distribution tax in computing tax liability under the provision of the income tax Act. 19. Admission of the additional grounds has been opposed in principle

ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi vs. Pc Jewellers Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6649/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(X)Section 40

facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent wishes to lodge claim for deduction of Education Cess on income tax and dividend distribution tax in computing tax liability under the provision of the income tax Act. 19. Admission of the additional grounds has been opposed in principle

Metropolis Healthcare Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the claim of the deduction of dividend distribution tax made by the assessee in this additional ground is rejected

ITA 6484/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasiya, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32A(2)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, education cess paid by the assessee on total income and dividend distribution tax, should be directed to be allowed as deduction in terms of the law clarified by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case ... raising additional grounds, assessee also sought to direct the AO to allow education cess paid by the assessee on total income and dividend distribution tax. Assessee also raised additional ground that AO/CIT(A) have erred in not allowing the TDS credit to the assessee company which was available

Jpm Tools Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

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

ITA 5232/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jpm Tools Ltd., Vs Acit, Sanjay Satpal & Assocaites, F-11, Central Circle-13, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacj3128K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2021

Section 143(3)Section 14A

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." 11. Decision in Holcim India (P.) Ltd. (supra) was followed and elaborated in Chemin vest Ltd. (supra).” 9. Respectfully following the ratio laid down

Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 8229/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate; & MsFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal [CIT] – DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

earlier years. 17. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO was not justified and has erred in addition of Dividend Distribution Tax („DDT‟) amounting to Rs.44,30,50,434 to the total tax payable of the Appellant, without considering the fact that such DDT liability pertains