“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai

ITA 929/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the

ITA 1041/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80HSection 8O

Section 115-0 of the Act, DDT paid by a company distributing dividend is not an income tax on profits or income of the company, but, is a tax on the dividend, which is income of the shareholder of the company. Hence, DDT is tax on the dividend income ... DDT is a ‘tax on dividend income of the shareholder’. The entire legislative history of Section 115-O corroborates this. More importantly, the Apex Court in the case of Tata Tea Co. Ltd (supra) too has confirmed the nature of income being dividend income, which is subject to DDT

Sophos Technologies Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

meanwhile, the return was taken for scrutiny assessment. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee requested for refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by it contending that the rate of DDT paid on the dividends remitted to the shareholders (residents of United Kingdom), should not exceed ... Sophos Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT the Ld. A.O. did not grant any relief in respect of the claim relating to refund of excess DDT paid by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging the non-grant refund of excess

DCIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 3282/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: ShriAbdulla PettiwalaFor Respondent: Shri RiteshMisra(CIT DR)a/w Shri

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 244ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40(1)Section 43B

appellant. 6. The CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to grant refund of Rs.3,78,31,605 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 declaredand paid ... Ground No.6. The assessee contended that it had claimed a refund of Rs.3,78,31,605/-, being the excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid under section 115-O of the Act. The assessee had declared dividends in favour of a non- resident shareholder resident in Germany, and the applicable

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 2842/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriAbdulla PettiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra(CIT DR)a/w Shri

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 244ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40(1)Section 43B

appellant. 6. The CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to grant refund of Rs.3,78,31,605 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 declaredand paid ... allowed. 13. Ground No.6. The assessee contended that it had claimed a refund of Rs.3,78,31,605/-, being the excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid under section 115-O of the Act. The assessee had declared dividends in favour of a non- resident shareholder resident in Germany

Hero Fincorp Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Delhi, C.R. Building

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2542/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18 Hero Fincop Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) C. R. Building, New Delhi-110002 अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Pan:Aaach0157J Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Aggarwal Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On 16.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of ‘Hire Purchase Leasing & Finance'. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/(First Appellate Authority Hereinafter Referred As “Faa”), Delhi Dated 27.03.2024 Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Of Provision For Collection Charges -Rs. 9,75,00,000/-

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT (THIRD MEMBER), SHRI SATBEER

Harish Chandra Purohit, Ratlam vs. Income Tax Officer - 1, Ratlam

In the result- the Impugned order is set aside as and by way

ITA 221/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Giesecke and Devrient India Pvt Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT (OSD), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1428/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(8)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

1 ITA No. 1428/Del/2022 & SA No. 166/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms

Schineler India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dcitrg 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 724/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Schindler India Pvt Ltd Dcit Schindler House, Main Street, Range 15(3) (2) Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400076 (Pan: Aaecs1548J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandani Shah, Ms. Niddhi Agarwal & Ms. Riddhi Maru, Cas Revenue : Shri Ajay Chandra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Vide Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2021-22/1040015716(1) Dated 22.02.2022 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2021-22/1039079646(1), Dated 25.01.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “Ground I. Legal Grounds

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani Shah, Ms. Niddhi Agarwal and Ms. Riddhi Maru, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

that the credit of prepaid taxes of Rs. 60,90,59,436/- be granted to the Appellant GROUND VIII: NON-GRANT OF CREDIT OF DDT PAID OF RS. 11,65.27,768/- 4.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. AO erred ... granting credit of DDT paid of Rs. 11,65,27,768/- to the Appellant. 4.2. The Appellant thus prays that the credit of DDT paid of Rs. 11,65,27,768/- be granted to the Appellant. 7 Schindler India Pvt Ltd. AY 2017-18 GROUND IX: INTEREST U/S 234B

Mitsui Kinzoku Components Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3912/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

rejecting the application of the assessee for issuing an order u/s 237 of the Act determining the refund of Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) amounting to Rs. 36,06,590/-, Rs. 72,93,927/- and Rs. 1,51,13,861/- for AYs. 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively ... Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company ITA Nos.- 3910, 3911,3912/Del/2024 Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd. Limited, Japan (MMS') and deposited Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') of INR 90,63,886 @ 16.61% [Being 15% tax enhanced by 7.5% surcharge and 3% cess] vide Challan No. 00158 dated 09 June

Mitsui Kinzoku Components Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3911/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3910/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

Jasmina Trust, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2117/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaljasmina Trust, Dy. Cit, B-60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Circle-49(1), Limited, Nairaina Vs. New Delhi. Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110028. Pan-Aaatj0296K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 57Section 57(1)

income by way of dividend Under the existing provisions of clause (34) of section 10 of the Act, dividend which suffer dividend distribution tax (DDT) under section 115-O is exempt in the hands of the shareholder. Under section 115-O dividends are taxed only at the rate of fifteen

Kripakaran R T, Chennai vs. DCIT, Tambaram

ITA 2629/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. T. Kripakaran, AssesseeFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस एस

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Cummins India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1256/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 35

short credit of tax deducted at source (TDS)/tax collected at source (TCS) of Rs.14,59,293/- and short credit of dividend distribution tax (DDT) at Rs. 50,78,82,579/- respectively. Considering the contention of learned counsel for the assessee and also observing that the rectification application filed

Cummins India Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 632/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 13Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 80J

credit of tax deducted at source (TDS) /tax collected at source (TCS) of Rs. 14,59,293/- and short credit of dividend distribution tax (DDT) at Rs. 50,78,82,579/- respectively. Considering the contention of learned counsel for the assessee and also observing that the 34 ITA Nos.632/PUN

Nexgen Skill India Trust, Moradabad vs. CIT Exemtption, Lucknow

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

ITA 1172/DEL/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2025-26 Nexgen Skill India Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Mansarover Paradise Complaxe Hall No.8, Bilari, S.O. Bilari Moradabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12ASection 80Section 80G

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH

Sony India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5926/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 115Section 237

No.5926/Del/2024 by the Hon'ble Special Bench that the provisions of double taxation avoidance agreement does not get triggered when a domestic company pays DDT u/s 115-0 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Sony India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5924/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 115Section 237

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3851/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roysony India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 22 (2), A – 18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (Pan :Aabcs1571Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144Bof The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020- 21Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

relevant to AY 2015-16. The next issue relates to the Dividend Distribution Tax. Additional ground was raised seeking application of lower rate of DDT. Such claim though not made in original return or assessment proceedings raises only legal issues and facts of DDT are part of record. The issue