← 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

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2844/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

erred in not directing the AO to grant refund of Rs.6,05,30,569 being excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid by the Appellant being the difference between the rate of 20.35765 percent under section 115-0 of the Act on the dividends declared and paid by the Appellant ... assessee has challenged the applicability of Section 115-O of the Act, in the present appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) levied under Section 115-O is subject to the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), and in this case, the India-Germany

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2843/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

erred in not directing the AO to grant refund of Rs.6,05,30,569 being excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid by the Appellant being the difference between the rate of 20.35765 percent under Section 115-O of the Act on the dividends declared and paid by the Appellant ... assessee has challenged the applicability of Section 115-O of the Act, in the present appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) levied under Section 115-O is subject to the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), and in this case, the India-Germany

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hydreabad

ITA 472/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

group case of MSN Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd in ITA Nos.884 & 885/Hyd/2024 for A.Y 2019-20 and A.Y 2020-21, wherein addition made towards Dividend Distribution Tax on deemed dividend on similar set of facts has been deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT. However, during the course of the appellate proceedings

Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 382/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

group case of MSN Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd in ITA Nos.884 & 885/Hyd/2024 for A.Y 2019-20 and A.Y 2020-21, wherein addition made towards Dividend Distribution Tax on deemed dividend on similar set of facts has been deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT. However, during the course of the appellate proceedings ... carefully considered the plethora of case laws relied upon by both sides. The addition towards deemed dividend for the purpose of levy of dividend distribution tax has been made by considering the debit balance outstanding in the accounts of two group concerns i.e., M/s MSN Laboratories

Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1966 और 1967/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Kunal Pandey, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Prajna Paramita, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 80I

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 ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer ought to have restricted the levy of dividend distribution tax on the dividend distributed/ paid to Guardian International Corporation, to 15 percent in terms of Article 10(2) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between

Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1966/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1966 और 1967/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Kunal Pandey, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Prajna Paramita, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 80I

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 ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer ought to have restricted the levy of dividend distribution tax on the dividend distributed/ paid to Guardian International Corporation, to 15 percent in terms of Article 10(2) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between

ACIT, Circle-10(2), New Delhi vs. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1819/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1966 और 1967/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Kunal Pandey, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Prajna Paramita, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 80I

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 ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer ought to have restricted the levy of dividend distribution tax on the dividend distributed/ paid to Guardian International Corporation, to 15 percent in terms of Article 10(2) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between

Barclays Global Service Centre Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 694/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.694/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Barclays Global Service Centre V The Assistant Private Limited, S Commissioner Of Income 5 To 12 Floor(Part), Building Tax, G2 Gera Commerzone Sez, Circle-1(1), Pune. Survey No.65, Kharadi, Vadgaon Sheri, S.O. Pune City, Pune – 411014. Maharashtra. Pan: Aadcb1173D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Riddhi Maru – Ca(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

submitted that Assessee had filed rectification application before the Assessing Officer with reference to Ground ITA No.694/PUN/2022 [A] No.2 which is related to “Dividend Distribution Tax(DDT) Credit Not Given”. Ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer(AO) has not considered the payment of DDT, though copy of challan was provided ... Ld.AR submitted that she has been informed that Assessing Officer has passed a Rectification Order allowing the Credit of Dividend Distribution Tax. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the ld.Assessing Officer to verify the Assessee’s claim of payment of Dividend Distribution Tax and give credit

Intertek India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4660/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT- DR
Section 115Section 237

A.C.I.T 2. The solitary grievance raised vide five grounds of appeal of the assessee pertains to the rejection of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax [DDT] payment made by the assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a private limited company incorporated in India ... Article 11 of India-UK tax treaty should be allowed to the Appellant. The ld AR added that the correct rate of Dividend distribution tax i.e., rate under DTAA vs Section ITA No. 4660/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2019-20] Intertek India [P] Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T 115-O is under consideration

ITO Ward-19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Nicaf LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1880/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ito, Ward-19(2)(4), Mumbai Nicaf Llp Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Income Tax 11/12, Laxmi Mahal, Bombanji Petit Office, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Road, A. K. Marg, Kemps Corner, Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai – 400036. Pan/Gir No. Aanfn5731A (Appellant) : (Respondent) C.O. No. 86/Mum/2025; (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1880/Mum/2025) Nicaf Llp Ito, Ward-19(2)(4), Mumbai Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Income 11/12, Laxmi Mahal, Bombanji Petit Road, A. K. Marg, Kemps Corner, Vs. Tax Office, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400036. Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Pan/Gir No. Aanfn5731A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, SR AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

payment to the partners’ account towards accumulated profit for 3 years from the date of conversion and that the same was to evade Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) which was liable to be paid by the assessee on profit distribution as dividend. The ld. DR relied on the decision ... utilization of accumulated profits reflecting in the accounts of the company which were not distributed to the shareholders for evading payment of dividend distribution tax by directly crediting the same to the capital account of the partners. The revenue contends that it is in violation of the provisions of Section

Polycab India Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4673/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115Section 237Section 9

raised are as under:- 1. erred in confirming the action of the AO in rejecting refund claimed by Appellant in respect of the dividend distribution tax (DDT) paid under section 115-0 of the Act, on dividend paid to the International Finance Corporation ('IFC') which is not subjected to tax ... force. 4. Ergo, the sole issue involved is whether ld. AO is justified in claiming the refund in respect of dividend distribution tax paid u/s.115-O(1) on dividend paid to international finance corporation which has the immunity under the Income Tax Act by virtue of Section 9 of Article

Polycab India Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4672/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2019-20
Section 115Section 237Section 9

raised are as under:- 1. erred in confirming the action of the AO in rejecting refund claimed by Appellant in respect of the dividend distribution tax (DDT) paid under Section 115-O of the Act, on dividend paid to the International Finance Corporation ('IFC') which is not subjected to tax ... force. 4. Ergo, the sole issue involved is whether ld. AO is justified in claiming the refund in respect of dividend distribution tax paid u/s.115-O(1) on dividend paid to international finance corporation which has the immunity under the Income Tax Act by virtue of Section 9 of Article

Polycab India Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4671/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115Section 237Section 9

raised are as under:- 1. erred in confirming the action of the AO in rejecting refund claimed by Appellant in respect of the dividend distribution tax (DDT) paid under section 115-0 of the Act, on dividend paid to the International Finance Corporation ('IFC') which is not subjected to tax ... force. 4. Ergo, the sole issue involved is whether ld. AO is justified in claiming the refund in respect of dividend distribution tax paid u/s.115-O(1) on dividend paid to international finance corporation which has the immunity under the Income Tax Act by virtue of Section 9 of Article

M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6543/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 14A

initio and bad in law.” 23. The assessee has also taken the following additional ground of appeal :- “The Appellant prays that the Dividend Distribution Tax ('DOT') Rs. 83,34,148 paid under section 115-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at the rate of 16.2225 percent ... declared and paid dividend of Rs.5,13,74,000/- to its parent shareholder, Genpact, Indian Investments, Mauritius. He submitted that the assessee paid dividend distribution tax of Rs.5,13,34,148/- at the rate of 16.2225% u/s 115-O whereas applicable tax rate on such distributions as per the DTAA

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon

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

ITA 6415/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 14A

initio and bad in law.” 23. The assessee has also taken the following additional ground of appeal :- “The Appellant prays that the Dividend Distribution Tax ('DOT') Rs. 83,34,148 paid under section 115-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at the rate of 16.2225 percent ... declared and paid dividend of Rs.5,13,74,000/- to its parent shareholder, Genpact, Indian Investments, Mauritius. He submitted that the assessee paid dividend distribution tax of Rs.5,13,34,148/- at the rate of 16.2225% u/s 115-O whereas applicable tax rate on such distributions as per the DTAA

Timken India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 92/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri K.M.Gupta/Krishan Shaw, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234D

DTAA to that effect. In the Treaty between India and Hungary, the Contracting States have extended the Treaty protection to the dividend distribution tax. It has P a g e 3 | 31 Assessment Year : 2017-18 been specifically provided in the protocol to the Indo Hungarian Tax Treaty that, when ... following observations on this aspect f) Wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intended to extend the treaty protection to the dividend distribution tax, it has been so specifically provided in the tax treaty itself. For example, in India Hungry Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [(2005) 274 ITR (Stat

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Geecee Ventures Limited, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4119/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

erred in concluding the Learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred as Ld. Assessing Officer) is correct in denying the part credit for Dividend Distribution Taxes amounting to Rs.46,14,400 and levying interest of Rs.18,91,903 thereon. Appellant has paid Dividend Distribution Tax on November 7, 2017 and copy ... deduction of INR.1,57,73,420/- claimed by the Assessee under Section 80IA of the Act (b) Non grant of credit of dividend distribution tax of INR.46,14,400/- paid on 07/11/2017 and the consequential levy of interest under Section 115P of the Act and raising of demand of INR.65

Geecee Ventures Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3975/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

erred in concluding the Learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred as Ld. Assessing Officer) is correct in denying the part credit for Dividend Distribution Taxes amounting to Rs.46,14,400 and levying interest of Rs.18,91,903 thereon. Appellant has paid Dividend Distribution Tax on November 7, 2017 and copy ... deduction of INR.1,57,73,420/- claimed by the Assessee under Section 80IA of the Act (b) Non grant of credit of dividend distribution tax of INR.46,14,400/- paid on 07/11/2017 and the consequential levy of interest under Section 115P of the Act and raising of demand of INR.65

DCIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Biostach India Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3559/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

349/Mum/2016 & 3559/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Biostodt India Ltd. that disallowance u/s 14A could not be made since the dividend income is subject to dividend distribution tax u/s 115O. Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities. 11.3 We have considered the rival submissions ... that on the issue of disallowance u/s 14A in respect of dividend income, the assessee’s claim that the same is subject to dividend distribution tax, and hence, no disallowance ought to be made is not tenable as the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex

Biostadt India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 349/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

349/Mum/2016 & 3559/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Biostodt India Ltd. that disallowance u/s 14A could not be made since the dividend income is subject to dividend distribution tax u/s 115O. Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities. 11.3 We have considered the rival submissions ... that on the issue of disallowance u/s 14A in respect of dividend income, the assessee’s claim that the same is subject to dividend distribution tax, and hence, no disallowance ought to be made is not tenable as the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex