“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

Transpek Industry Limited, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Ncome Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1080/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2020-21 Transpek Industry Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Lilleria 1038, Vs Income Tax Gotri Sevasi Road, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara-390021 Vadodara Gujarat Pan: Aaact8639B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26-10-2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-[National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)] [Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”], Which Upheld The Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Passed By The Cpc, Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154

assessee due to some technical issues. The CPC passed order u/s 154 giving the particulars of mistake (page no.23 of the order) as “DDT BBS Whitelisted cases”. While passing the order u/s 154 of the act, CPC made an addition of Rs. Transpek Industry Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Year ... from the record and is not rectifiable and rejected the grounds. The CIT(A) allowed the ground of assessee relating to grant credit of DDT directing the assessee to file the request with jurisdictional AO to correct the assessment year in the challan to claim the credit. 5. Aggrieved

ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S Standard Chargered Global Business Servies Pvt. Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 124/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 964/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Standard Chartered Global The Deputy Commissioner Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.1, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aaecs 9043E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 124/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 The Assistant Standard Chartered Global Commissioner Of Income Vs. Business Services Pvt. Tax, Ltd., Corporate Circle 3(1), No.1, Haddows Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aaecs 9043E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 195Section 40

statistical purpose. 6. Coming to second issue of this appeal by assessee, is as regards to the lower authorities not giving credit to DDT paid to the extent of Rs.28.1 crores u/s.115O of the Act whereas, the assessee has duly remitted within the prescribed timelines. For this, assessee has raised ... following Ground No.5:- 5. The Lower Authorities erred in not giving credit to DDT paid to the extent of INR 28.1 Crores under section 115-0 of the Act, which was duly remitted within the prescribed timelines. 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances

Standard Chartered Global Business Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 964/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 195Section 40

Piem Hotels Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4407/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244Section 244ASection 250

learned Assessing Officer ('AO') has erred in not granting interest under section 244A of the Act while granting refund of Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT") in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to compute the interest in accordance with the provisions ... Without prejudice to Ground No 1, if the provision of section 244A is at all held to be not applicable in case of DDT refund, then the learned AO be directed to grant interest on principle fairness and natural justice and denial of unjust enrichment. It is prayed that

Appsemantics Infotech Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1097/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. DR

Section 154

brief facts of the case are that the assessee had declared dividend of Rs.40,00,000/- on 25/08/2014 on which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) of Rs.6,79,800/- was paid on 27/08/2014. The details of DDT of Rs.6,79,800/- pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 was wrongly shown ... before the A.O. on 31/12/2018 for the A.Y. 2014-15 and also for A.Y. 2015-16 with a request that the DDT of Rs.6,79,800/- which was wrongly shown in the Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2014-15 should be considered in the A.Y. 2015-16. The rectification application

DCIT Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Medsave Health Insurance Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 1922/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1920 To 1922/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19 बनाम Medsave Health Insurance Tpa Ltd. Dcit F-701, A. Lado Sarai, New Delhi. Vs. Central Circle-18, Pan No. Aabcs8148M Ncc Dit(S), Jhandewlan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153ASection 154

findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under: - “4.5 For A.Y. 2014-15, the appellant submitted that while calculating tax liability credit of DDT payment was not given. Therefore, the AO found claim of the appellant correct and vide rectification order dated 29.12.2021, reduced the liability of the appellant

Medsave Health Insurance Tpa Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Centralcircle-18, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 1921/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2016-17

Section 153ASection 154

Medsave Health Insurance Tpa Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-18, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 1920/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Section 153ASection 154

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

ITA 4251/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)

declared and paid dividend of Rs. 5,68,34,000/- to its parent share-holders Genpact India Investments. The assessee paid dividend distribution tax (DDT) of Rs. 94,39,416/- @ 16.6087% u/s 115-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Genpact India Investments ... company, which holds directly at least 10% of the capital of the company paying the dividends. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the DDT paid by it u/s 115-O of the Act is in excess of the rate of 5% provided under Article 10 of the Indo Mauritius DTAA. Accordingly

Ms. Genpact India, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

ITA 4060/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)

Nileshkumar Shantilal Patel, Fursadpura vs. ITO Ward 3, Nadiad

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

ITA 855/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 271ASection 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Nileshkumar Shantilal

Executors of the Will of Late Smt. Gaindibai Barjatya, Mumbai vs. Jurisdictional Officer, Mumbai

ITA 1299/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

order so passed is bad in law and ought to be quashed in toto. Ground No. 2: Refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid INR 7,82,66,184/- 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC grossly erred ... adjudicating the claim of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid by the Appellant under section 115-O of the Act on the ground that it does not form part of subject matter of the assessment and hence, outside the purview of appellate proceedings. 3. On the facts

ACIT Circle-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Dart Express Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 2505/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Richa SachdevaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(Appeals) in NFAC erred in holding that the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the assessee on dividend distributed is tax paid on the income of share- holders from such dividend. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law the ld. CIT(Appeals) in NFAC in holding that the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the assessee in relation to Foreign share-holders is payable @ 10% as per Treaty and not @ 20% as per Act. 4. Whether on the facts of case

Sampark Management Cousultancy LLP, Noida vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1879/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Sampark Management Vs. Pr.Cit, Noida, Consultancy Llp, Noida. A-178, Sector – 40, Noida, Uttar Pradesh- 201 301. Pan Acsfs9969E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Pr.CIT of the Act requiring the assessee to give details of dividend income received by the assessee with narration. Also reconcile the same with DDT paid on them (copy at page 22 of the Paper Book). Reply of the assessee dated 03.12.2019 pursuant to the said notice is placed

Ashapura Perfoclay Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 3639/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ashapura Perfoclay Limited Dy. Cit 3Rd Floor, Jeevan Udyog Building, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, 278, D. N. Road, Fort, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang R. SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 115JSection 115PSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

same 3. That the Hon’ble CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the 12152305 learned A.O.’s contention seeking to recover DDT of Rs.73,01,547 along with interest u/s. 115P of Rs.30,66,650 4. The appellant craves for leave to add, amend or modify the 0 grounds

Intertek India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2014/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)

assessee, no further disallowance can be made. 24. In ground No. 11, the assessee has claimed refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid amounting to Rs.6,06,53,118/-. Before us, it is a common point between the parties that the issue is decided against the assessee

Cadence Design Systems (India) Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle 4(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1489/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uscadence Design System (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(2), Plot Nos. 57A, B & C, Noida Delhi Special Economic Zone, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1138Q Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv Shri Vibhu Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2024

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 194Section 234BSection 250Section 274Section 40

opportunity of being heard and explaining the case to the Appellant. 3. Non-grant of additional claim for refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ("DDT") - Rs. 4,07,72,163 3.1 That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC- AO/NFAC has erred ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC- AO/NFAC has grossly erred in not granting the refund of excess DDT amounting to Rs. 4,07,72,163/- deposited by the Appellant during the year under consideration. 3.3 That, in view of the facts and circumstances

Ericsson India Global Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1150/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaericsson India Global Vs. Dcit Services Private Ltd. Circle – 7(1) 18/17, 4Th Floor, Wea, New Delhi Pusa Lane, Dhaka House, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110 005 Pan No. Aacce 4175 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.03.2024

Section 37(1)Section 80G

fulfilled. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In Ground No.3 assessee has raised the issue of lower rate of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) as per the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) as against applicability of rate of tax under section115-O of the Act. Though, the Assessing

Diversey India Hygiene Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

Accordingly, the ground raised by the appellant is allowed

ITA 1243/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234CSection 250Section 80G

Appellant to the shareholders resident of USA be restricted to 15% under India-USA Tax Treaty and the refund of excess tax (DDT) paid by the Appellant thereon be granted. ITA No.1243 & 1283//Mum/2023 Assessment Year 2017-18 Interest under Section 234C of the Act On the facts and circumstances ... Vide letter, dated 13/01/2023, the Assessee has also raised an additional ground before CIT(A) seeking refund of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid at the rate of 20.36% as per the provisions of Section 1150 of the Act to the extent the same exceeded the beneficial rate of taxation

Grid Controller of India (Formerly Known As Power System Operation Corporation Ltd), Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2326/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmagrid Controller Of India Vs. Dcit (Formerly Known As Power System Circle-19(1), Operation Corporation Ltd) Delhi. B-9, 1St Floor, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, Hauz Khas, South Delhi, New Delhi Pan No. Aafcp2086B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 50

Further, the details of same have also been furnished in the income tax return (PB Pg. 132) under Schedule DDT. 2. In the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 21.02.2020, without giving credit of the DDT paid Rs.24,17,055/-, has computed interest liability under section 115P ... Rs.6,52,607/- and has raised total demand of Rs.30,69,670/- on account of DDT. 3. As DDT has been duly paid and the same is also appearing in Form 26AS, the credit of the same be allowed pursuant to which, the demand raised on this account of DDT