“DDT”

Special Rate ProvisionsSection 115-OSection 115-O499 judgments

The decision most relied on for DDT is Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT (117 Taxmann.com 96), cited in 291 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on DDT

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.

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.

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).

Genpact India (P). Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

111 Taxmann.com 402 · 2019 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An assessee can challenge tax liability arising from special charging provisions, such as Section 115QA, by filing a separate appeal under Section 246A. Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT), as an additional tax not linked to the computation of total income, must be appealed independently.

AMD Metplast (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

20 Taxmann.com 647 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Commission paid to a Managing Director for services rendered is eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provided it is paid as per the terms of employment and not merely to avoid Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT).

Judgments citing DDT

Samson Maritime Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2259/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 153A

paid by USCL would have been considered as deemed dividend paid by subsidiary company to its holding company. To avoid paying the DDT, the company has used a colorful devise of transferring property (office premises) from SML to USCL. This transaction is nothing but a tool/colorful devise used ... transfer a fund to its 100% holding company at the time of having general reserve in the company and to avoid to pay the DDT which is very higher than the actual stamp duty paid at the time of registration of agreement. Though the asset is sold

Samson Maritime Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2258/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 153A

Chetna Sundaram, Janak Puri Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 70(1), Delhi

ITA 2512/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1 ITA Nos. 2713-2714/Del/2023; ITA Nos. 7,51,271/Del/2024 etc. Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME

The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Zydus Lifesciences Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Cadila Healthcare Ltd.), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 530/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHATHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 250Section 61

Ld.CIT(A) has erred in giving direction to the AO for granting interest u/s.244A(1)(b) of the Act on the amount of excess DDT refunded from 01.10.2010 to the date the refund was granted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) ought to have ... processed by CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 03/05/2011 and demand of Rs. 10,69,99,920/- was raised. The credit of DDT of Rs. 9,53,58,500/- paid by the assessee company was not granted. Thereafter assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

Devender Kumar, Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward 1, Rohtak

ITA 2509/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1 ITA Nos. 2713-2714/Del/2023; ITA Nos. 7,51,271/Del/2024 etc. Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME

DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kuber Sucurities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 1412/DEL/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 250

admitting the additional ground raised by the Appellant with respect additional claim of the to restrict the levy of the dividend distribution tax ("DDT") on dividend declared and paid to its non-resident shareholders in accordance with Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (Tax Treaty’) between India and USA by holding that ... merits, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant in respect of levy of the dividend distribution tax ("DDT") on dividend declared and paid to its non-resident shareholders in accordance with the Tax Treaty between India and USA and upheld the Page | 2 ITA No.1412/Del/2023

Jubliant Enpro Private Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine

ITA 1414/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 1413 & 1414/Del/2023 Vikas Arora (AY: 2019-20) THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F

Income Tax Department, Mumbai vs. Perry Impex, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 6984/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT-19(1), Mumbai vs. Perry Impex, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 6983/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Perry Impex, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 6800/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Perry Impex, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 6799/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Scit-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Basf India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6508/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 250Section 37Section 40

assessee has raised the following grounds: – "On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, given that Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT) represents tax on dividend income, BIL should be granted the benefit of Article 10 of the India-Swiss Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and India-Germany Double ... Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Accordingly, DDT on the dividend declared and paid by BIL to BASF Schweiz AG, Switzerland, BASF Societas Europaea, Germany and BAS Construction Solutions GmbH, Germany being tax on dividend income should be liable at the rate prescribed in the respective India-Swiss Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Basf India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6507/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 250Section 37Section 40

Sony Music Entertainment India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Mumbai

ITA 3383/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain

Section 115Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 250

Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal : Assessment Year 2017-2018 “1. Ground No.1: Claim of Dividend Distribution Tax (‘DDT’) Refund 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal ... determining the dividend declared and paid by the Appellant to SBME Holdings BV (‘SBME’) being tax on dividend income. Consequently, the refund of excess DDT paid by the Appellant as claimed during the assessment proceedings be granted. 1.2. The Appellant prays that the learned Assessing Officer (‘Assessing Officer’) be directed

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Mehta, New Delhi

ITA 271/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1 ITA Nos. 2713-2714/Del/2023; ITA Nos. 7,51,271/Del/2024 etc. Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME

Knight Riders Sports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5967/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Hiten ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 237Section 4

override provisions of all other sections of the Act including section 4 of the Act. Further, the Bench held that DDT is a charge to tax profits of the company and not a charge in the hands of the shareholder or tax paid on behalf of the shareholder ... company's profits and not income in the hands of the shareholder. The Hon'ble Special Bench ruled that DDT is paid by the domestic company which is resident in India, and it is a tax on the income of the company and not tax paid on behalf

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd ( Merged Entity Hdfc Investments Limited ), Mumbai

ITA 2980/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate a

including surcharge and cess) 160,05,72,270 DDT paid on 27.07.2010 171,65,55,220 DDT refund due and claimed 11,59,82,950 24. 2. On completion of the impugned assessment, claim of refund of excess DDT paid by the assessee was ignored against which assessee went ... excess DDT paid by the assessee. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 24. 3. Revenue in its ground of appeal has referred to section 115-O(4) which does not permit the grant of any excess DDT. Provisions in sub- section (4) provides that DDT paid

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd ( Merged Entity Hdfc Investments Limited ), Mumbai

ITA 2979/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 1

Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. XvI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). XvII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). XvIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions. XIX. Increasing

Hdfc Bank Limited( As Successor to Hdfc Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2666/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Hdfc Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2665/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)

including surcharge and cess) | 160,05,72,270 DDT paid on 27.07.2010 | 171,65,55,220 DDT refund due and claimed | 11,59,82,950 24. 2. On completion of the impugned assessment, claim of refund of excess DDT paid by the assessee was ignored against which assessee went ... excess DDT paid by the assessee. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 24. 3. Revenue in its ground of appeal has referred to section 115-O(4) which does not permit the grant of any excess DDT. Provisions in sub- section (4) provides that DDT paid