“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

ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1710/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelife Insurance Corporation Of India V. Dcit – 3(2)(1) Central Office, F&A Department Room No. 608 3Rd Floor, West Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent Acit – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office Room No. 674, 6Th Floor “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

addition / disallowance to the extent of Rs. 22010,55,05,400 while determining the total income of the appellant and levying Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) under section 115-0 of Rs.215,45,70,000. Addition of Rs. 1408,35,90,000 in respect of Interim Bonus paid to the total

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1717/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

addition / disallowance to the extent of Rs. 20047,98,37,000 while determining the total income of the appellant and levying Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) under section 115-0 of Rs. 245,14,05,000, Addition of Rs. 1503,70,06,000 in respect of Interim Bonus paid

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1716/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1715/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

expenditure incurred towards shifting of plant in Goa 4. The assessee also raised additional grounds with regard to applicability of Dividend Distribution Tax [DDT] rate as per Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act] or DTAA and also with regard to Education Cess & Higher Secondary Education Cess. The additional grounds raised ... education cess at the rate of 3%. The details of dividend declared and dividend tax paid thereof is duly disclosed in "Schedule DDT" of the Original Income Page 65 of 67 Tax Return filed on 30th November 2013. The shareholding pattern of the Appellant as on 31st March

Alia Premedia Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7814/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Bhaumik GodaFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 3Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37Section 391

slab of 30% whereas there was no tax benefit to the assessee in the relevant assessment year. As far as the loss of DDT as assumed by 12 ITA No. 7814/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) the AO in the given set of facts is full of over thinking hence, simply

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(2), Bangalore

ITA 1358/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

grounds raised for the assessment year 2010-11 is listed below:- (i) Ground No.1 – General. (ii) Ground No. 2 – Levy of Dividend Distribution Tax [DDT] on share redemption. (iii) Ground Nos. 3 to 5 – Valuation methodology of preference shares. (iv) Ground No.6 – Consideration for redemption does not constitute ‘deemed dividend ... redemption of preference shares is artificially inflated and is a colourable device for transfer of funds to associated enterprise avoiding payment of taxes (DDT).” 8. The ld. AR submitted that (i) The method of valuation is undisputed since TPO has accepted the method of valuation i.e. NAV method

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(4), Bangalore

ITA 1357/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 655/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Das

Section 115OSection 14A

assessee, vide letter dated 05.02.2021 raised additional grounds of appeal which are reproduced below: - “Ground No 4: Refund for excess Dividend Distribution Tax ("DDT") Paid 3 ITA NO. 655 & 749/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Asian Paints Ltd., On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... appellant submits that the excess DDT paid by the Appellant u/s 115O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 having regards to the beneficial rate as per the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for dividends paid to non-resident shareholders, should be directed to be refund to the Appellant.” Ground

Jp Morgan Funds, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2430/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(b)Section 250

actually represented the cost of acquisition of these debentures. Accordingly, the face value of the debentures, i.e. the amount of dividend subject to DDT i.e. IN 13,85,580, had been considered as the cost of acquisition of the bonus debentures allotted to the Appellant, for the purpose of computing ... excluded while computing capital gains, if any, at the time of sale of such debentures. Further, unless the amount considered for the purpose of DDT is reduced from the capital gain earned on the sale of such debentures, the same will lead to taxation of the same income twice

ACIT- CC - 4(2), Mumbai vs. K.Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2527/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C