“ DDT ”

Trib.) Giesecke & Devrient 16.994%). India Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT

Education cess paid on total income and dividend distribution tax are allowable deductions for income tax purposes.

120 Taxmann.com 338 · 2020 · High Court

Union of India v. Tata Tea Co Ltd.

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.

398 ITR 260 · 2017 · Supreme Court

Torrent India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

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.

35 Taxmann.com 300 · 2013 · High Court

133 Taxmann.com 158 · 2021 · High Court

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

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

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).

111 Taxmann.com 402 · 2019 · Supreme Court

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

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.

20 Taxmann.com 647 · 2012 · High Court

ITA 5671/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

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

ACIT Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. Earthstone Holding (Two) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: 20 years from the date of allotment. Subsequently, in ACIT vs. Earthstone Holding (Two) Pvt. Ltd.

passed on 23.04.2014. Accordingly, the appellant was paid dividend @ 14% compounded annually from the date of allotment. The company JEPL paid dividend distribution tax (DDT) u/s 115-0 of the Act. It is further observed that the AO has treated the additional dividend received by the appellant as taxable only ... companies are liable to pay dividend distribution tax on the amounts declared as dividends. Accordingly, any dividend declared/paid by a domestic company on which DDT has been paid, is exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. In this case, the company paying dividend to the appellant has duly paid DDT

The ACIT - 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 1777/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR

ITA 1620/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

dated 1 September 2021 as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the dividend distribution tax (DDT) paid by the appellant on dividend distributed to its non- resident shareholders (i.e. Pfizer East India BV, Netherlands and John Wyeth brothers

Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ACIT-14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR

ITA 3736/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Pfizer Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR

ITA 3694/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

DCIT - 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR

ITA 2132/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT

Section 32Section 35D

also filed an additional ground of appeal as per letter dated 18 June 2021 with respect to the applicability of Dividend Distribution Tax [ DDT] under section 115O of The Income Tax Act or lower rate of tax in case of Non-Resident Assessee who are eligible for the benefit ... Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [ DTAA] as under:- “on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the appellant on dividend distribution to its non- resident shareholders ought to have been charged at the rate prescribed under the Double Taxation Avoidance

ACIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai vs. Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2108/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT

Section 32Section 35D

Van Oord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 792/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy() & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(14)Section 271(1)(c)

with regard to initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is premature at this stage hence dismissed. Rate applicable for Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) - Additional Ground 12. The assessee also has raised additional ground, which reads as under:- “The Appellant prays that the Dividend Distribution Tax („DDT‟) paid under ... applicable to taxation of dividend as per India Netherlands DTAA. The ld AR contended that accordingly the rate at which Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid is in excess of the rate prescribed under DTAA. While doing so, the ld AR drew our attention to the decision of the Mumbai Special

Dow Chemicals International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1201/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

under section 36(1)(va) of the Act should not have been made. 6. Refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT") paid 6.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant that the dividend ... pressed. 11. The issue arising in ground No. 6, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (“DDT”) paid by the assessee. 12. In appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee raised this issue by way of additional ground and submitted

Rama Rao Kotha, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Rama Rao Kotha Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.7-99, Near Indira Hospital Ward-2 Gokarakondavari Street Kakinada Korukonda East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Bpipk0075H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.Prabhakara Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 44A

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम “एसएमसी”पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी

Skf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1746/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Sailee V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 145A

circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer ('AO') ought to have held that the rate of dividend distribution tax (DDT) in respect of dividend paid by Appellant's to its parent company, AB SKF and to its shareholder, SKF Forvaltning Ltd, who are tax residents ... provisions of Most Favoured Nation Clause (MFN) contained in Protocol to India-Sweden DTAA. It is further prayed that the excess of DDT paid over and above the rate of tax prescribed in DTAA in respect of dividend paid to AB SKF and to SKF Forvaltning Ltd should be refunded

Rama Rao Karnam, Visakhapatnam vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 141/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.141/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mr.Rama Rao Karanam Vs. Joint Commissioner Of 4-4 Chandrampalem, Durga Nagar Income Tax Madhurawada Range-4 Pothinamallayapalem S.O. Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Pan : [Bcppk19929Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1043662508(1) Dated 29.06.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18 On 28.03.2019, Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,20,230/-. During The Course Of Assessment

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4973/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv

ITA 4972/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv

ITA 4971/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv

ITA 4970/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv

ITA 4969/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv

ITA 4968/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv