“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

M/S. Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1464/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1464/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400705. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.586/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ National Faceless Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Assessment Centre, Delhi. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1576/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit/Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Mumbai. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0126H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Sheth/Ms. Urvi Mehta/Abdulkadir Jawadwala Revenue By: Shri Aditya M Rai (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth/Ms. UrviFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M Rai (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(1)

under: - “15. The Ld. AO has erred in raising a demand of Rs.19,54,33,412/- on account of Dividend Distribution tax (DDT) payable. The Ld. AO erred in not granting credit for DDT of Rs.19,54,33,412/- which is already paid by the appellant and details of which ... furnished in return of income (Schedule-DDT). The appellant prays that the DDT credit be granted and the demand be deleted as it does not survive. 16. The Ld. AO has erred in charging interest Rs.12,41,00,217/- under section 115P of the Act considering the appellant

Standard Chartered Capital Limited (Formerly Known As Standard Chartered Investments and Loans (India) Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 7221/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Riddhi MaruFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

income. Additional Ground Of Appeal Additional Ground No 2: Application of India-UK tax treaty rate for dividends while determining Dividend Distribution Tax Liability (DDT) of the Appellant 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) ought ... appreciate that the DDT liability of the Appellant for AY 2010-11 on the dividends declared by it to Standard Chartered Bank, a tax resident of UK shall be restricted to the applicable rate of tax on dividends, as prescribed under the India - UK tax treaty. 2.2 On the facts

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 480/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R

Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

Additional Ground No.B1(1) of A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 47. The assessee by raising additional grounds sought refund of Excessive Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the assessee by applying the beneficial provision of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Finland to the tune of Rs.3 ... Tribunal in case of Giesecke & Devrient [India] Private Limited vs. The Addl, C.I.T [ITA No.7075/DEL/2017]. 48. Undisputedly the assessee has offered and paid DDT as per provisions contained under section 115-O of the Act and same has ITA Nos. 467 & 480/M/2020 26 M/s. Wartsila India Pvt. Ltd. been assessed

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 467/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R

Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

Omm Shree Realcon Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

distributed their accumulated profits to their substantial shareholders in the guise of loans either to utilize their idle surplus income or to escape DDT for purchase of immovable property by the assessee company. The assessee was required to pay interest @ 10% on such loans. 6. Before

J.B.Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2009/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

ground) ground) ground) credit accordingly 9 Incorrect computation of Ground No.6 interest u/s.234A (raised as Additional ground) 10 Refund of DDT Ground No.7 (raised as Additional ground) 11 Incorrect computation of Ground No.8 Ground No.7 Ground No.7 Ground No.8 interest u/s.234C & 9 (raised as & 8 (raised as & 8 (raised ... interest after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 24 2008 & 2009/Mum/2019 ITA 4656 & 4657/M/2018 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd Refund of DDT 24. During the assessment year 2015-16 the assessee paid dividend aggregating to ₹ 25, 43, 09, 250 to its shareholders on which the assessee

J.B.Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2008/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4657/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Private Limited, Rewari vs. DCIT, Circle, Rewari

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

ITA 1165/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 Mitsui Kinzoku Dcit Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Circle Plant No.242-243, Industrial Rewari Growth, Centre, Sector-3 Bawal, Rewari-123501 Pan No.Aaecm3062B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115(0)Section 250Section 90(2)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) had grossly erred in not allowing beneficial rate of tax Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) in accordance with the more beneficial tax rate prescribed under India-Japan DTAA, which is applicable as per section 90(2) vis-a-vis section ... consider, claims during assessment, if any 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly failed in construing the modification in tax rate of DDT as an additional claim filed during the assessment proceedings, which the Ld. AO ought to have allowed it during assessment proceedings itself. 5. That

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Blue Dart Express Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1370/MUM/2022[1370]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 250

shareholders in view of the provisions of Section 10(34) r.w.s.115(0) of the Act?" 2. "Whether as per Law, 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. "Whether the Dividend Distribution ... DDT) paid by the assessee in relation to Foreign share-holders is payable @20% as per Act or @ 10% as per Treaty?" 5. The brief facts in the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of express air cargo services. The assessee has filed the return

M/S Tricon Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2985/MUM/2022[2020-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2020-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021 M/S Tricon Global Services Dy. Cit, Cpc Private Limited, Bengaluru-560100 701, Dlh Park, S.V. Road, Off Vs. Mtnl, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aabco 0321 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 40Section 90(2)

claim of appellant to consider lower rate of dividend distribution tax M/s Tricon Global Services Pvt. Ltd. M/s Tricon Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 2 (DDT) in respect of dividend paid by Appellant to its (DDT) in respect of dividend paid by Appellant to its (DDT) in respect of dividend paid ... that the excess of rejecting the claim of the Appellant that the excess of rejecting the claim of the Appellant that the excess of DDT paid over and above the rate as per article 10 of DDT paid over and above the rate as per article 10 of DDT paid

Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited (Formerly Known As Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove

ITA 199/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Dewan Income-Tax Housing Finance Corporation Room No. 1927, Limited) 19 Th Floor, 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Vs. Air India Building, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Nariman Point, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 021 S.O. Mumbai Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd1977A

For Appellant: Mr. Ronak Doshi &For Respondent: Mr. K.C. Selvamani, CIT DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

deleted or appropriately reduced. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I. II AND III, GROUND NO. X: NON-GRANTING OF CREDIT OF DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX (DDT) PAID AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,25,31,557/- AND LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 115P AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,11,00,869/-: 1. On the facts ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO in the computation sheet, erred in not granting credit of DDT paid amounting to Rs. 18,25,31,357 2. The AO further erred in levying interest u/s 115P of the Act amounting

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Axis Capital Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3140/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit-3(1)(1) M/S. Axis Capital Limited Mumbai Vs. Axis House, P. B. Marg, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No. Aaacu 8367 M (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajnikant V. Chaniyari : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant V. Chaniyari

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 40

Limited education cess during the impugned year, which was incurred by the assessee as an additional liability for education cess on dividend distribution tax (DDT). The assessee contends that it had paid TDS and advance tax along with DDT and had computed Rs.2,06,11,817/- towards education cess ... Rs.61,01,365/- towards education cess on DDT aggregating to Rs.2,67,13,182/- as allowable deduction u/s. 37 r.w.s. 43B of the Act while computing the business income. The assessee had filed an additional claim for the impugned amount during the assessment proceeding specifying that its failure to claim

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 496/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

taking appropriate decision. 8. Next issue relates to the interest charged under section 115P of the Act for delayed payment of dividend distribution tax (DDT). The Learned AR submitted that the assessee has paid two types of dividend during the year under consideration, i.e., Dividend on equity shares was declared

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 495/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 494/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 1 (3)92), Mumbai

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

ITA 7807/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

erred in not granting the refund of 5. The learned A has erred in not granting the refund of excess Dividend DistributionTax (DDT) of Rs. 83,50,980/ excess Dividend DistributionTax (DDT) of Rs. 83,50,980/ excess Dividend DistributionTax (DDT) of Rs. 83,50,980/-; 6. The Id. Assessing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Group M Media (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3088/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, D.R

Section 115Section 250Section 37(1)

distribution tax as per section 115-0 of the Act during the year, while computing the total income. Refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid Cross Objection 3 - The Learned AO and CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that dividend paid by Group M India to its Singapore shareholder ... beneficial tax rate of 10% under Article 10(2) of the India - Singapore Tax Treaty, and thereby, ought to have held that the DDT paid by Group M India in excess of the 10% tax rate should be refunded to Group M India. Group M India craves leave

Dhruv Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. CIT(A), Udaipur-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 86/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ao Who Ignored The Same.

For Appellant: Shri B.A. Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’B” JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt