← 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

Sterlite Technologies Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 584/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

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

ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Durr India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly-allowed

ITA 1638/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1638/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit, Durr India Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle 1 (1), Vs. 471, Prestige Polygon, Chennai. Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. Pan: Aaacd 3568P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40

Rs.17,40,286/-) treating it as u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. :- 4 -: ii. Directing refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid beyond the 10% rate under the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), relying on tribunal decisions. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, Revenue ... ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the Ground No.2 and its sub-ground filed by the Department are dismissed. Directing refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) 12. The FAA had directed refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid beyond 10% of rate under the India-Germany Double Taxation

Technip India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Spl Range-9, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

ITA 9852/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 6390/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 9852/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technip Energies India Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited, ( Formerly Known As Income Tax, Technip India Limited), Special Range-9, A-4, Sector 1, Institutional New Delhi Area, Noida – 201 301 Pan No. Aaack3349R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Yishu GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 250Section 92C

circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have restricted the levy of the dividend distribution tax, on the dividend distributed to Technip France SA (formerly known as Technip France SAS), to avoidance agreement (DTAA) between India and France read with para

Technip India Ltd., Noida vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

ITA 6390/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 6390/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 9852/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technip Energies India Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited, ( Formerly Known As Income Tax, Technip India Limited), Special Range-9, A-4, Sector 1, Institutional New Delhi Area, Noida – 201 301 Pan No. Aaack3349R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Yishu GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 250Section 92C

circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have restricted the levy of the dividend distribution tax, on the dividend distributed to Technip France SA (formerly known as Technip France SAS), to avoidance agreement (DTAA) between India and France read with para

Kalyani Maxion Wheels Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1298/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 115

erred in not granting the benefit of Article 11 of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA’) in determining the dividend distribution tax (‘DDT’) payable, without appreciating the fact that the dividend declared and paid by the Appellant to Maxion Wheels Holding GmbH, being tax on dividend income should ... such dividend income. Thus, wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company paying dividend distribution tax, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any. 4. In view of the above submission of Ld. Counsel

Kalyani Maxion Wheels Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1297/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 115

erred in not granting the benefit of Article 11 of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA’) in determining the dividend distribution tax (‘DDT’) payable, without appreciating the fact that the dividend declared and paid by the Appellant to Maxion Wheels Holding GmbH, being tax on dividend income should ... such dividend income. Thus, wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company paying dividend distribution tax, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any. 4. In view of the above submission of Ld. Counsel

Kalyani Maxion Wheels Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1296/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 115

erred in not granting the benefit of Article 11 of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA’) in determining the dividend distribution tax (‘DDT’) payable, without appreciating the fact that the dividend declared and paid by the Appellant to Maxion Wheels Holding GmbH, being tax on dividend income should ... such dividend income. Thus, wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company paying dividend distribution tax, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any. 4. In view of the above submission of Ld. Counsel

Kalyani Maxion Wheels Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1295/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 115

erred in not granting the benefit of Article 11 of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA’) in determining the dividend distribution tax (‘DDT’) payable, without appreciating the fact that the dividend declared and paid by the Appellant to Maxion Wheels Holding GmbH, being tax on dividend income should ... such dividend income. Thus, wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company paying dividend distribution tax, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any. 4. In view of the above submission of Ld. Counsel

M/S. Ajk Investments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4362/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

addition of Rs. 2,04,33,430/- 2 M/s. AJK Investments Private Limited u/s. 115-O of the Act on account of dividend distribution tax. The ld. AO then passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2016, determining total income

JCIT(OSD) I/C. of DCIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Zt Systems India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as per our aforesaid observations

ITA 1729/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1729/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), I/C. Dcit-1(3)(1), Mumbai (M.H.)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 2(22)(a)Section 201Section 206C(7)Section 92C

premium was dividend received by the AE on which the provisions of section 115A of the Income-tax Act should be applicable and Dividend Distribution Tax should have been deducted? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in deleting

ACIT Central Circle-05, New Delhi vs. Ve Commercial Vehicles Limited, New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1411/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have restricted the rate of dividend distribution tax (DDT) to 10% instead of 19.994% u/s 1150 of Income Tax Act on dividend of Rs.34,20,00,000 paid to Volvo Truck Corporation, Sweden ... raised by the assessee are thus, allowed. 16. Ground of appeal Nos. 2 to 2.1 raised by the assessee are with respect Dividend distribution tax on the dividend declared and paid to non-resident shareholders. 17. Before us, ld.AR fairly admits that this issue is covered against the assessee

Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5, New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1101/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have restricted the rate of dividend distribution tax (DDT) to 10% instead of 19.994% u/s 1150 of Income Tax Act on dividend of Rs.34,20,00,000 paid to Volvo Truck Corporation, Sweden ... raised by the assessee are thus, allowed. 16. Ground of appeal Nos. 2 to 2.1 raised by the assessee are with respect Dividend distribution tax on the dividend declared and paid to non-resident shareholders. 17. Before us, ld.AR fairly admits that this issue is covered against the assessee

Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1100/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have restricted the rate of dividend distribution tax (DDT) to 10% instead of 19.994% u/s 1150 of Income Tax Act on dividend of Rs.34,20,00,000 paid to Volvo Truck Corporation, Sweden ... raised by the assessee are thus, allowed. 16. Ground of appeal Nos. 2 to 2.1 raised by the assessee are with respect Dividend distribution tax on the dividend declared and paid to non-resident shareholders. 17. Before us, ld.AR fairly admits that this issue is covered against the assessee

Manatec Electronics Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 83/CHNY/2025[2018-9]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.83/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Manatec Electronics Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, 19A, Abinav Kailash, Corporate Ward 4(1), Velachery Road, Little Mount, Chennai. Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. [Pan:Aafcm1685D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. & Ms. Ranjini, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. As Per Concise Grounds Of Appeal, Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35Section 37Section 37(1)

pressed. 10. In ground No. 8, the assessee has agitated that the ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issue relating to Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) liability 6 I.T.A. No.83/Chny/25 and the ld. AR has submitted that the DDT liability was discharged by the assessee, but, however, incorrect assessment year

Harmander Singh Sran, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 29, New Delhi

ITA 4018/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

ITA No.4018/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI

Universal Trading Company Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 223/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 115JSection 154Section 237Section 244ASection 250

return of income. However, while giving credit of MAT, the claim of refund was reduced by ₹17,338/- and the DDT (Dividend Distribution Tax) refund of ₹22,38,770/- was not allowed as the MAT credit for income-tax amount of ₹5,65,118/- only was allowed instead

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

ITA 2052/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. assessing officer/DRP ought to have restricted the levy of the dividend distribution tax, on the dividend distributed / paid to Sony Holding (Asia) B.V., Netherlands, being resident of the Netherlands, in terms of Article 10 of DTAA between ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing officer/DRP ought to have restricted the levy of the dividend distribution tax, on the dividend distributed / paid to Sony Gulf FZE, Dubai UAE, in terms of Article 10 of the India- UAE, instead of section

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

ITA 1688/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. assessing officer/DRP ought to have restricted the levy of the dividend distribution tax, on the dividend distributed / paid to Sony Holding (Asia) B.V., Netherlands, being resident of the Netherlands, in terms of Article 10 of DTAA between ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing officer/DRP ought to have restricted the levy of the dividend distribution tax, on the dividend distributed / paid to Sony Gulf FZE, Dubai UAE, in terms of Article 10 of the India- UAE, instead of section

Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-24(1), New Delhi

ITA 9080/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. assessing officer/DRP ought to have restricted the levy of the dividend distribution tax, on the dividend distributed / paid to Sony Holding (Asia) B.V., Netherlands, being resident of the Netherlands, in terms of Article 10 of DTAA between ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing officer/DRP ought to have restricted the levy of the dividend distribution tax, on the dividend distributed / paid to Sony Gulf FZE, Dubai UAE, in terms of Article 10 of the India- UAE, instead of section

Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Limited, Lakeshore Hospital, Nettoor vs. DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 355/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Lakeshore Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. .......... Appellant Nettoor So, Ernakulam 682040 [Pan: Aaacl4923A] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant By: Ms. Rohini Thampy, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Running A Hospital. The Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Was Filed On 30.10.2018 Disclosing Loss Of Rs. 11,39,12,480/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini Thampy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

partly allowed. 7. Ground of appeal No. 5 challenges the finding of the CIT(A) in adjudicating the ground of appeal relating to dividend distribution tax of Rs. 1,01,78,789/-. Since this issue in preceding years was restored to the AO, this issue also restored to the file