DDT — 499 case laws

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1142/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

assessee-company has paid dividend of ₹50,02,48,000/- to its holding co. Peri Mauritius on which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) liability of ₹7,01,60,000/- was paid by the assessee-company in terms of provisions of Section 115O of the Act. Similar payments by way of DDT ... assessee moved an application dated 18.02.2019 under Section 237 of the Act before the AO seeking refund due to excess payment of DDT for all such years. To contend excess tax paid by way of DDT, the assessee pointed out before the AO that while the DDT

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1140/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115OSection 237

assessee-company has paid dividend of ₹50,02,48,000/- to its holding co. Peri Mauritius on which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) liability of ₹7,01,60,000/- was paid by the assessee-company in terms of provisions of Section 115O of the Act. Similar payments by way of DDT ... assessee moved an application dated 18.02.2019 under Section 237 of the Act before the AO seeking refund due to excess payment of DDT for all such years. To contend excess tax paid by way of DDT, the assessee pointed out before the AO that while the DDT

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1139/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115OSection 237

assessee-company has paid dividend of ₹50,02,48,000/- to its holding co. Peri Mauritius on which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) liability of ₹7,01,60,000/- was paid by the assessee-company in terms of provisions of Section 115O of the Act. Similar payments by way of DDT ... assessee moved an application dated 18.02.2019 under Section 237 of the Act before the AO seeking refund due to excess payment of DDT for all such years. To contend excess tax paid by way of DDT, the assessee pointed out before the AO that while the DDT

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1138/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115OSection 237

assessee-company has paid dividend of ₹50,02,48,000/- to its holding co. Peri Mauritius on which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) liability of ₹7,01,60,000/- was paid by the assessee-company in terms of provisions of Section 115O of the Act. Similar payments by way of DDT ... assessee moved an application dated 18.02.2019 under Section 237 of the Act before the AO seeking refund due to excess payment of DDT for all such years. To contend excess tax paid by way of DDT, the assessee pointed out before the AO that while the DDT

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1137/DEL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115OSection 237

assessee-company has paid dividend of ₹50,02,48,000/- to its holding co. Peri Mauritius on which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) liability of ₹7,01,60,000/- was paid by the assessee-company in terms of provisions of Section 115O of the Act. Similar payments by way of DDT ... assessee moved an application dated 18.02.2019 under Section 237 of the Act before the AO seeking refund due to excess payment of DDT for all such years. To contend excess tax paid by way of DDT, the assessee pointed out before the AO that while the DDT

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1136/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115OSection 237

assessee-company has paid dividend of ₹50,02,48,000/- to its holding co. Peri Mauritius on which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) liability of ₹7,01,60,000/- was paid by the assessee-company in terms of provisions of Section 115O of the Act. Similar payments by way of DDT ... assessee moved an application dated 18.02.2019 under Section 237 of the Act before the AO seeking refund due to excess payment of DDT for all such years. To contend excess tax paid by way of DDT, the assessee pointed out before the AO that while the DDT

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1484/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 1484/Mum/2021

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 253(1)Section 92C

respect of education cess paid on income- tax amounting to INR 5,50,32,424 and education cess paid on dividend distribution tax (DDT) amounting to INR 4,85,09,297. Without prejudice to above, upon adjudication, where your Honours decide the aforesaid Ground No. 7 in favour ... determining demand of Rs. 252,54,84,961/- (Rs. 61,26,061/- & Rs. 251,93,58,900/-, being regular demand and DDT demand respectively) payable was inadvertently issued with DIN ITBA/AST/S/156/2019-20/1023352459(1) dated 28.12. 2019. Similarly penalty notice u/s 274 rw.s. 271(1)(c) was also issued with

Ami Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Accordingly, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is deleted, and the assessee's claim is allowed in full

ITA 544/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.544/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. The Acit बनाम/ 701 To 710 Lilleria 1038 Circle-1(1)(1) Next To Zydex Office Vadodara V/S. Gotri Sevasi Road Vadodara – 390 020 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 12/06/2023 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2016-17 2 Facts Of The Case:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)

director for his services to the Company and company is able to justify that the payment is not with the intention to avoid DDT and therefore the expenses should not be disallowed under section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. 4.5. But the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The relevant ... entire assessment order was failed to provide any evidence that the company has made the payment of commission only to avoid DDT. On the contrary, the assessee could provide substantial evidence to prove service of the director with the facts that he is one of the 30 shareholders holding only

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

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

ITA 341/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

case, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ['the Ld. CIT(A)'] erred in rejecting the claim of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid by the Appellant amounting to Rs. 2,54,74,925. 2. That on the facts of the case ... erred in rejecting the contentions of the Appellant that the rate of DDT payable by the Appellant on dividend paid to its shareholder namely Koninklijke Philips N.V., which is a tax resident of the Netherlands, should be 5% as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Netherlands

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

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

ITA 340/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

case, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ['the Ld. CIT(A)'] erred in rejecting the claim of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid by the Appellant amounting to Rs. 2,54,74,925. 2. That on the facts of the case ... erred in rejecting the contentions of the Appellant that the rate of DDT payable by the Appellant on dividend paid to its shareholder namely Koninklijke Philips N.V., which is a tax resident of the Netherlands, should be 5% as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Netherlands

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

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

ITA 339/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

case, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ['the Ld. CIT(A)'] erred in rejecting the claim of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid by the Appellant amounting to Rs. 2,54,74,925. 2. That on the facts of the case ... erred in rejecting the contentions of the Appellant that the rate of DDT payable by the Appellant on dividend paid to its shareholder namely Koninklijke Philips N.V., which is a tax resident of the Netherlands, should be 5% as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Netherlands

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

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

ITA 338/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

case, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ['the Ld. CIT(A)'] erred in rejecting the claim of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid by the Appellant amounting to Rs. 2,54,74,925. 2. That on the facts of the case ... erred in rejecting the contentions of the Appellant that the rate of DDT payable by the Appellant on dividend paid to its shareholder namely Koninklijke Philips N.V., which is a tax resident of the Netherlands, should be 5% as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Netherlands

Indaco Jeans Private Limited, Goregoan East vs. Ward 6(3)(2), Aayakrbhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 80/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos.79 & 80/Mum/2024 Indaco Jeans Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-6(3)(2) IN THE INCOME

Indaco Jeans Private Limited, Goregaon East vs. I.T.O 6(3)(2), Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 79/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos.79 & 80/Mum/2024 Indaco Jeans Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-6(3)(2) IN THE INCOME

DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5848/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan: Aaaci1747H Vs. The Acit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5935/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dcit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan : Aaaci1747H Respondent) Appellant) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken Shah, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai Dated 27.06.2017 For

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

additions made by the TPO. Claim of Education and Secondary and Higher Education Cess as an allowable expenditure Re-computation of Dividend Distribution Tax ("DDT") liability on dividends paid to non-resident shareholders at beneficial rates as per applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and claim of refund for excess taxes

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5848/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 801A

Additional Claim of Education and Secondary and Higher Education Cess as Ground No.1 an allowable expenditure Additional Re-computation of Dividend Distribution Tax ("DDT") liability on Ground No.2 | dividends paid to non-resident shareholders at beneficial rates as per applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and claim of refund for excess ... disposal on merits. 30. With regard to additional ground no.1 & 2 towards Claim of Education and Secondary and Higher Education Cess and refund of DDT as per DTAA rates, the Id AR fairly conceded that the issues are already held against the assessee in view of judicial pronouncements. The issue

ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mediacom Communications Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 68/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Acit 2(2)(1) Vs. Mediacom Room No. 545, 5 Th Floor Communications Private Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, 349 Business M.K. Road, Point, Western Express Maharashtra - 400020 Highway Andheri Eeast Maharashtra – 400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcm6252N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Smiti Samant

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

respect of deduction of education cess paid on Income Tax. 8. Additional ground/claims made in respect of deduction of education cess paid on DDT. 9. Additional ground/claims made in respect of excess DDT payment of Rs.1,76,84,331/- 6.5 The grounds of appeal raised from

Deloitte & Touche Assurance & Enterprise Risk Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 342/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri SP. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 135Section 135(5)Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)

common in both these appeals, whereas in ITA No. 342/Hyd/2023, assessee is aggrieved against the denial of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the assessee by mistake. We, therefore, find it just and convenient to dispose of these two appeals, by way of this common order ... other issue involved in ITA No. 342/Hyd/2023 is in respect of the refusal of both the authorities to order refund the excess DDT on the ground that the Income Tax Act does not envisage the refund of DDT and in the absence of any provision, no refund could be granted

Deloittee Tax Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 341/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri SP. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 135Section 135(5)Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)

common in both these appeals, whereas in ITA No. 342/Hyd/2023, assessee is aggrieved against the denial of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the assessee by mistake. We, therefore, find it just and convenient to dispose of these two appeals, by way of this common order ... other issue involved in ITA No. 342/Hyd/2023 is in respect of the refusal of both the authorities to order refund the excess DDT on the ground that the Income Tax Act does not envisage the refund of DDT and in the absence of any provision, no refund could be granted

Rushikesh Jagdishchandra Naik, Ghatkopar (East) vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4850/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Rushikesh Jagdishchandra Naik 10 2Nd Floor, Sandeep Building Income Tax Officer Tilak Nagar, Ward No.16(3)(1) M.P. Vaidya Marg, Ghatkopar Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. East, Rajawadi S.O. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 077 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapn7066R : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 31.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

Rushikesh Jagdishchandra nail; A.Y. 2013-14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM

“DDT”

Leading authorities on DDT

Judgments citing DDT

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7 (1) (1), Mumbai

Ami Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

Indaco Jeans Private Limited, Goregoan East vs. Ward 6(3)(2), Aayakrbhavan

Indaco Jeans Private Limited, Goregaon East vs. I.T.O 6(3)(2), Aayakar Bhavan

DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai

ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mediacom Communications Private Limited, Mumbai

Deloitte & Touche Assurance & Enterprise Risk Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

Deloittee Tax Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

Rushikesh Jagdishchandra Naik, Ghatkopar (East) vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai