“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ccl, Ranchi vs. DCIT Cir-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 165/RAN/2017[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.Κ.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017, 30.01.2019, 21.12.2023, 19.02.2024, 20.02.2024 & 30.01.2024 For The

For Appellant: Shri M.Κ.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

Assessee's Appeals-disputed Additions SI. 4 Head Ι.Τ.Α. Νo. Lease Rent/ Depreciation Forest Land Land & Crop Compensation Credit of Dividend Distribution Tax Rehabilitation fund Contribution Expenses IICM Charges Provisions Toward NCWA VIII Mine Closure Expenses CSR Expenses - Welfare u/s 14A PA AY 2006-07 164/RAN/2017 By Assessee ... Assessee's Appeals-disputed Additions SI. Head Ι.Τ.Α. No. Lease Rent/ Depreciation Forest Land 1 2 Land & Crop Compensation Credit of Dividend Distribution Tax 3 Rehabilitation fund Contribution Expenses 4 IICM Charges 5 6 Provisions Toward NCWA VIII Mine Closure Expenses 7 8 CSR Expenses - Welfare

Ccl, Rnachi vs. Additional CIT, RG -1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 164/RAN/2017[06-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.172,173,174,175,176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

assessee. 13. Next issue is with regard to credit of dividend distribution. It was the submission that the assessee has paid the dividend distribution tax. Ld.AR drew our attention to page 12 of the paper book which is a challan for the same, the copy of which is as follows

Mitsui Kinzoku Components Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3912/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

rejecting the application of the assessee for issuing an order u/s 237 of the Act determining the refund of Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) amounting to Rs. 36,06,590/-, Rs. 72,93,927/- and Rs. 1,51,13,861/- for AYs. 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively ... shareholder company, Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company ITA Nos.- 3910, 3911,3912/Del/2024 Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd. Limited, Japan (MMS') and deposited Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') of INR 90,63,886 @ 16.61% [Being 15% tax enhanced by 7.5% surcharge and 3% cess] vide Challan No. 00158 dated 09 June

Mitsui Kinzoku Components Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3911/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3910/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Nutricraft India Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 298/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA

Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 153CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40

payment of remuneration as genuine despite there being a payment in form of dividend thereby attracting the tax liability in terms of dividend distribution tax? c. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not verifying whether there were ... payment to the directors almost doubled without any reason. Therefore the claim cannot be allowed as the company has avoided dividend distribution tax by paying the share holder as bonus instead of dividend. Therefore the remuneration can be claimed as expense only to the extent of what was paid

Jasmina Trust, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2117/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaljasmina Trust, Dy. Cit, B-60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Circle-49(1), Limited, Nairaina Vs. New Delhi. Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110028. Pan-Aaatj0296K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 57Section 57(1)

tax on certain dividends received from domestic companies. The provisions of the Income-tax Act provide that dividend income shall be exempt if dividend distribution tax is paid on such income. It is proposed to insert a new section 115BBDA in the said Act so as to provide that ... taxation of income by way of dividend Under the existing provisions of clause (34) of section 10 of the Act, dividend which suffer dividend distribution tax (DDT) under section 115-O is exempt in the hands of the shareholder. Under section 115-O dividends are taxed only at the rate

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Hubtown Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3038/MUM/2025[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

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 Cheminvest Ltd. (supra)’ 6.2.6 Hon'ble Madras High Court in Case

Hubtown Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1601/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Cummins India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1256/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 35

relating to short credit of tax deducted at source (TDS)/tax collected at source (TCS) of Rs.14,59,293/- and short credit of dividend distribution tax (DDT) at Rs. 50,78,82,579/- respectively. Considering the contention of learned counsel for the assessee and also observing that the rectification application ... additional grounds, to the file of Ld.JAO for necessary verification and made the correct TDS/TCS as well as grant of credit of correct dividend distribution tax eligible to the assessee and decide in accordance with law. Ground Nos.3 & 4 of additional grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Cummins India Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 632/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 13Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 80J

short credit of tax deducted at source (TDS) /tax collected at source (TCS) of Rs. 14,59,293/- and short credit of dividend distribution tax (DDT) at Rs. 50,78,82,579/- respectively. Considering the contention of learned counsel for the assessee and also observing that the 34 ITA Nos.632/PUN ... additional grounds, to the file of Ld.JAO for necessary verification and made the correct TDS/TCS as well as grant of credit of correct dividend distribution tax eligible to the assessee and decide in accordance with law. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 of additional grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Birlasoft Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 1116/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Birlasoft Limited Dcit, Circle – 8, Pune 35 & 36, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Vs. Park, Phase-1, Midc, Hinjawadi, Pune – 411057 Pan: Aaack7308N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assesse Is A Public Limited Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Computer & Software Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.95,13,15,400/-. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc & An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 25.01.2021 Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,00,23,03,750/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Assessment Under The E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 On The Following Issues:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 27Section 36(1)(va)Section 51Section 80ISection 90

assessee had earned an amount of Rs.4,99,02,049/- as dividend income on its mutual fund investments. Considering the payment of dividend distribution tax, the assessee claimed dividend of Rs.4,99,02,049/- as exempt u/s 8 10(35) of the Act. The assessee disclosed the dividend income

Sony India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5926/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 115Section 237

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not allowing refund of excess Dividend Distribution tax amounting to INR 4,99,16,610 paid under section 115-0 of the Act along with applicable interest by relying on the decision

Sony India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5924/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 115Section 237

Sony India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 22(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3851/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roysony India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 22 (2), A – 18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (Pan :Aabcs1571Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144Bof The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020- 21Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

issue of deductibility of education cess was debatable in nature and there were multiple judicial precedents in favour of the deduction. Credit of Dividend Distribution Tax deposited by the Appellant not granted 27. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. A has grossly erred ... short granting the credit of Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs.3,05,68,841/- as against of Rs.9,88,30,565/- paid on 26 August 2019 vide challan no.07294 having BSR Code 0011349 even though the said challan is also appearing in Form 26AS of the subject year. Miscellaneous contentions

Sap India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

Section 115Section 143Section 144BSection 144CSection 234DSection 37Section 92C

capital in nature and not allowable under Section 37 of the act. As per ground No. 5 the assessee is requesting that the dividend distribution tax paid to its non-resident shareholders at the rate of 20.56% charged in terms of Section 115- O of the act should have been ... Accordingly ground No. 4 of the appeal is allowed. 17. Ground No. 5 is with respect to the refund of excess dividend distribution tax. The claim of the assessee is that dividend distribution tax was calculated originally at the rate of 20.56% paid to its foreign shareholders wherein according

Deutsche Investments India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3765/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Deutsche Investments India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle 4(2)(1) Block B1, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Off 6Th Floor, Room No. Western Express Highway, Goregaon Vs. 642, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400 063. Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaccd1765E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Umashankar PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth

Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

queries raised by Ld. AO/Ld. CIT(A). Meanwhile, the appellant company has raised two more additional grounds of appeal with respect to Dividend Distribution Tax under 115-O of the Act and requested the appellate authority to direct the AO to allow the deduction relating to Education Cess and Higher ... gave a direction to verify and provide correct TDS as per law. Similarly, with respect to giving credit to correct payment Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT), the Ld. AO was directed to give credit to DDT after verifying the payment made by appellant company. Since, the levy of interest under section

Basf India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2001/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 92C

income of the assessee as per Final assessment order. However in the computation sheet forming part of said reassessment order, the credit for dividend distribution tax, advance tax, self-assessment tax and regular assessment taxes paid till the date of passing such re-assessment order was not granted. BASF India

Basf India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2000/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 92C

JCIT (OSD) -3(4), Mumbai vs. Sterlite Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

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

ITA 612/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sterlite Technologies Limited Principle Commissioner Of E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Income Tax- 27, Vs. Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Navi Mumbai Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Principle Commissioner Of Sterlite Technologies Limited Income Tax- 27, E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Vs. Navi Mumbai Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr & Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2023-24/1058725938(1), Dated Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Ay 2016-17 13.12.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, Ltu, Circle- 1, Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1.1 Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') In Not Allowing The Claim Of Appellant That The Rate Of Ddt In Respect Of Dividend Distributed To Its Overseas Holding Company Ought To Be Restricted To The Rate Of Tax Of 5% Prescribed Under Article 10(2) Of Applicable India- Mauritius Dtaa & That The Appellant Is Eligible For Refund Of Ddt Paid In Excess Of Such Rate.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Ms. Palak Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR and Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

Rs.4,83,92,306/- while computing the book profit u/s.115JB to apply Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). Further, assessee had claimed refund of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid in excess in relation to dividend distributed to its shareholder which was denied by the ld. Assessing Officer. 4. We first take