“ 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 1276/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. S. Ramachandran, Pudukottai

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

Section 132(4)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. K. Rethinam, Dindigul

ITA 1275/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Opp.Smbm School, Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 3/29, New No,3/40, Muthupattinam, S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 25, Sambasivam Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Assessee(S) By : Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin, CIT

Sudesh Kumar Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 2012/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Urbainia Spaces Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle 13, Flat No.19, Ground Floor, Prop. No. Delhi. 01, Pardhan Complex, Main Road, Mandawali, Delhi-1100 92 Pan :Aabcu6277D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Industries Private Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1712/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1712/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Vs Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dhunseri House, 4A Woodburn Park, L.R.Sarani, West Bengal-700020 Pan No. :Aafcd 5214 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ca & Vidhi Ladia, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Pradip Kumar Mondal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26/07/2024, Passed By The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre U/S.143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) R.W.S.144B Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2020-2021 On The Following Grounds :- 1.(A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Tpo Erred In Making A Downward Adjustment Of Rs.24,72,79,392/- In Respect Of The Transfer Value Of Power By The Captive Power Plant At Haldia, West Bengal. (B) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Methodology Followed By The Assessee To Benchmark The Arm'S Length Value Of The Power Transferred By The Eligible Unit To The Non-Eligible Unit Fulfilled The Internal Cup Parameters & In That View Of The Matter The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Tpo Was Impermissible On The Given Facts & In Law. (C) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Manner In Which The Drp/Tpo Has Benchmarked

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, CA and VidhiFor Respondent: Pradip Kumar Mondal, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 80ISection 92C

that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC was unjustified in not granting credit for DDT taxes of Rs. 1,31,04,000/- paid u/s 115-0 of the Act. 6. For that the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds and/or ... while computing the tax payable/refundable. 17. Similarly, in ground NO.5 the issue raised is against the order of AO in not granting credit for DDT taxes of Rs.1,31,04,000/- paid u/s.115-O of the Act. 15 18. After hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material

Dormakaba India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2977/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

ITA 2976/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

before the Ld.CIT(A) wherein the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal wherein the assessee prayed for refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) deposited by it. In this regard, the Ld.CIT(A) has noted that the assessee is an Indian company engaged in the business of manufacturing ... Nos.2974 - 2977/Chny/2024 (AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 & 2020-21) M/s.Dormakaba India Pvt. Ltd. :: 3 :: accessories and, inter alia, has claimed refund of excess DDT of Rs.66,96,786/- to its shareholder M/s.Dorma Germany on the plea that the rate of TDS should be governed by Article

Dormakaba India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

ITA 2975/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Dormakaba India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

ITA 2974/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Dormakaba India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

ITA 18/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ami Life Science Private Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Abbas Gulamhusainwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavam Limbasiya, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(ii)

ITAT was of the considered view that payment of commission to Shri Girish Chovatia was not done with a view to avoid payment of DDT. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with following observations: "5.3 Having duly considered the facts on record and the appellant's submissions ... entire assessment order was failed to provide any evidence that the company has made the payment of commission only to avoid DDT. On the contrary, the assessee could provide substantial evidence to prove service of the director with the facts that he is one of the 30 shareholders holding only

M/S Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee for both AYs are allowed

ITA 6099/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal & (Physical Hearing) M/S. Lubrizol India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Road, Turbhe, Vs Income Tax, Dcit/Acit, Navi Mumbai – 400705. Circle – 3(4), Mumbai. [Pan No. Aaacl 0126 H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Paras Savla Advocate A/W Ms. Rajnandini Shukla, Ca/ Ar Revenue By Ms. Neena Jeph, (Cit Dr) / Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 254(1)

erred in raising a demand of INR 10,84,33,287 on account of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) payable. The Ld. AO erred in not granting of credit of INR 6,90,65,788 which is already paid by the Appellant and details of which are furnished in return ... income (Schedule- DDT). The Appellant prays that the DDT credit be granted, and the demand be deleted as it does not survive. ITA No. 4630 & 6099/Mum/2024 (AY 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/s. Lubrizol India Private Limited 16. The Ld. AO has erred in charging interest

Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee for both AYs are allowed

ITA 4630/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Section 254(1)

Jc Bamford Excavators Ltd., England vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 625/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.625/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Jc Bamford Excavators Ltd., Acit Rocester, Uttoxeter, St 14, Vs. (International Taxation), 5Jp, Staffordshire, England. Circle-2(1)(2), Room No.508, 5Th Floor, D-Block, Civic Centre, Pan No.Aabcj6004D Newdelhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP has erred in not appreciating that the dividend distribution tax (“DDT”) on the dividend income distributed by JCB India to the Appellant is a tax on recipient of Income and DDT rate ought to be restricted ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP has erred in rejecting the ground in relation to DDT by holding that in absence of any claim made before the AO, the claim for DDT cannot be considered, without appreciating that DRP is an extension

Nagar Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

order to exempt the dividend earned on mutual funds, one has to examine whether the company declaring dividends had paid dividend distribution tax (DDT) before making the dividend payment. In order to decide the matter on merits as directed by Hon'ble Tribunal, I have to make a detailed examination

Capita India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Mumbai

ITA 4954/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025

For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92C

adjustment as per his own computation would be Rs 11,96,41,940, B. Corporate Tax grounds Incorrect computation of the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) demand 14. erred in granting DDT credit of Rs 50,00,000 instead of DDT credit of Rs 57,00,917 claimed by the Appellant ... thus resulting in the short grant of DDT credit, 15. erred in incorrectly levying consequential interest amounting to Rs 4,89,027 under Section 115P of the Act; 16. erred in adjusting disputed DDT demand of Rs 71,261 from the total refund due to the Appellant. While making such

Dana Anand India Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Akurdi, Pune

ITA 1571/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37Section 37(1)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 80ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 827/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R

ITA 826/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R

ITA 825/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

DCIT, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R

ITA 824/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R