“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. Ge Be Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2615/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 92D

No.2615/Bang/2019 M/s. GE BE Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 16 of 24 12. With regard to ground No.23: Additional Ground relating to dividend distribution tax ("DDT") raised by the Appellant vide application dated 23.11.2021: 23. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO ought ... return of income filed by the Appellant, it is evident that the Appellant had declared and distributed dividend to its equity shareholders after deducting DDT at the rate of 16.995% under section 115-0 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Since the shareholder is a Mauritian tax resident, therefore

Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer/Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have restricted the levy of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT), on the dividend paid to M/s Skytanking Holding Gmbh, Germany, to 10 percent in terms of Article 10 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between ... been stated that Assessee has applied the rate @ 16.995% under section 115- O of the Act while discharging its Dividend Distribution Tax [DDT] liability. As per India – Germany DTAA, the rate of tax that India can charge (irrespective of whether it is tax on the shareholder receiving dividend

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

M/S Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 1

only as an appropriation of taxable profit. In the case of payment of dividend, the assessee will also have to pay Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT). The above being the purpose behind the provisions of section 36(1)(iiv) of the Act, let us examine the facts in the present case

Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 525/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing officer/Commissioner of Income tax (appeals) ought to have restricted the levy of Dividend Distribution Tax (“DDT”), on the dividend paid to M/s Texas Instruments Incorporated, USA, to 15 percent in terms of Article 10 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) between ... Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. DCIT (2019)(ITA No.961/Del/2015 dated 31.10.2019), wherein the Delhi bench has expressed the view that the Dividend Distribution tax (DDT) is a “tax on income” and hence additional ground can be raised by the assessee in appellate proceedings. 4.3 The present appeal pertains

M/S Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 275/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

M/S.Ims, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 4016/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Ims V. Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) Level One, Grand Bella Vista 19Th Floor, Air India Building S.V. Road, Bandra (W) Nariman Point Mumbai - 400050 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafi0407M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Dharmveer Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharmveer Singh

Section 133A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri

Section 14ASection 35

letter dated 5 February 2021, assessee raised two additional grounds of appeal as Under:- Ground number 6:- refund for excess dividend distribution tax (DDT) paid on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant submits that ITA No.4675 & 3290/Mum/2015 Asian Paints ... excess DDT paid by the appellant u/s hundred and 15 O of the income tax act, 1961 having regard 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 refunded to the appellant. Ground number

Amit Mehra, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), New Delhi

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 6952/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaasstt. Year: 2013-14 Amit Mehra Vs. Ito, Ward-16(3) S/O Arun Kumar Mehra, New Delhi. Plot No. 142A/11-12, Noida Sez(Nsez), Noida Uttar Pradesh Pin : 201305 Pan Aappm0542A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M P Rastogi, Advocate

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT

Ge Energy Management Services Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 634/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

students on the aspects of diagnosis or techniques of surgery, that will amount to making available the technical knowledge and experience of the doctor" • DDT v Scientific Atlanta Inc, (ITA No. 9228 Mum 2004) In this judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal, the Bench has relied

Ge Energy Management Services Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5815/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

Ge Energy Management Services Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1008/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

Ge Energy Management Services Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1731/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

M/S. Ge Energy Management Services Inc., Gurgaon vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 458/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

Ge Energy Management Services Inc., Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 429/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

Ge Energy Management Services Inc., Gurgaon vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5544/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 8229/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate; & MsFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal [CIT] – DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

years. 17. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO was not justified and has erred in addition of Dividend Distribution Tax („DDT‟) amounting to Rs.44,30,50,434 to the total tax payable of the Appellant, without considering the fact that such DDT liability pertains

CIT vs. National Travel Services

Appeal Is allowed set

ITA - 309 / 2011HC Delhi11 Jul 2011

Section 2

% V IIV ITA 219 OF 2010 ITA 219 OF 2010 ITA'1204'OF 2010 1TA"3d9pF-20il ... n n n