“double taxation”

MiscellaneousGeneralGeneral4,703 judgments

The decision most relied on for double taxation is DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV (382 ITR 114), cited in 325 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on double taxation

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV

382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court

325

citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court

259

citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT

239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court

243

citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

Raymond Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

86 ITD 791 · 2003 · ITAT

154

citing judgments

For services to qualify as 'Fees for Technical Services' or 'Fees for Included Services' under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs), they must 'make available' technical knowledge, experience, skill, or processes to the recipient, enabling them to apply such expertise independently.

CIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust

144 ITR 146 · 1983 · High Court

124

citing judgments

Sections 4 and 5 of the Income Tax Act, which define total income and chargeability, are subject to Section 90, meaning that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the Act's provisions in case of a conflict.

Assessing Officer (International Taxation) v. Nestle SA

458 ITR 756 · 2023 · Supreme Court

122

citing judgments

The benefit of a Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is available only upon notification by the Government. A notification under section 90(1) is a necessary and mandatory condition for giving effect to a DTAA or any protocol that alters existing law.

Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO

135 Taxmann.com 358 · 2022 · ITAT

109

citing judgments

The filing of Form 67 for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is a directory requirement, not mandatory. Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC due to delay in filing this form. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override domestic law.

CIT v. Havells India Ltd.

352 ITR 376 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

For royalty income, especially in the context of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA), the 'source of income' is the determinative factor for taxability, rather than merely the 'source of receipt'.

Judgments citing double taxation

Booking.Com B.V., the Netherlands vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2033/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbooking.Com B.V. Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1)(2) Oosterdokskade 163, International Taxation, 1011 Dl, Amsterdam, The Civic Centre, Minto Road, Netherlands, New Delhi – 110002 Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcb2395A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151

letter dated 18.12.2023 had submitted that, “Booking.com is a tax resident of the Netherlands and is eligible to claim benefits of the India-Netherland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Booking.com operates an online reservation system through which participating accommodations (such as hotels, guesthouses, etc.) can make their rooms available for reservation

Youcloud Dmcc, Dubai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram

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

ITA 1220/DEL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(d)Section 201(1)

chargeable to tax in India. The AO referred to Article 25 of the India-UAE DTAA, which reads as under: "Article 25 Elimination of Double Taxation 1.That the laws in force in either of the Contracting States shall continue to govern the taxation of income and capital in the respective

DCIT(Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Foundation, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7609/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit(Exemption)-1(1), Aditya Birla 6Th Floor, Mtnl Foundation, Building, Pedder Road, Vs. C-1, Aditya Birla Cumballa Hills, Centre, S. K. Mumbai-400 026 Ahiremarg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0382P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh Devda, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 250

that the Co-ordinate Bench in earlier years had held that interest is taxable on accrual basis but had simultaneously issued directions to avoid double taxation of the same income. It was contended that if interest income is to be taxed on accrual basis in earlier year, then the same ... interest income offered on receipt basis in A.Y. 2016–17 should be excluded, so that there is no double taxation. On other Consequential Grounds (Accumulation and allowance of expenditure) 18. The learned AR submitted that the remaining grounds relating to accumulation of income under section 11(1)(a) and section

DCIT(Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Foundation, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7608/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 250

K V Tex Firm, Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1865/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A

results in taxation of both the capital (cost of goods sold) and the revenue (profit) components of the transaction. Such an approach leads to double taxation of the same trading cycle and is therefore impermissible in law. 44. The correct approach, as upheld in a catena of judicial pronouncements including

K V Tex Firm, Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1860/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A

K V Tex Firm, Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1859/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Meenakshi Ammal Trust, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1664/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292C

double addition. The undersigned is of the view that taxing the same income twice is against the basic principles of taxation, and such double taxation cannot be justified under the law. 6.3.15 The AO has treated the deposits as anonymous donations u/s 115BBC of the Act. However, the appellant provided ... further attempt to treat the cash deposits of Rs.33,99,68,999/- in the bank accounts as separate anonymous donations would clearly amount to double taxation of the same income, which is impermissible in law. 33. In view of the above factual matrix, we find that the Ld.CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Meenakshi Ammal Trust, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, and the grounds raised by the assessee by way of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules are partly allowed

ITA 1658/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 292C

portion of the disclosed amount admittedly remained unallocated towards specific heads and sustaining a separate addition of Rs.6,74,26,047/- would amount to double taxation of the very same income. In view of the above, we find ourselves in agreement with the well-reasoned conclusions drawn by the Ld.CIT

Arcil Sbps 001 I Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT(TDS)-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4700/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararcil Sbps 001 I Trust Dcit (Tds)-(1)(1), The Ruby, 10Th Floor, 29, Mtnl Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Cumballa Hills, Dadar (W), Mumbai- Pedder Road, 400 028 Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aabta3859J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rahul Sarda, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 04.02.2026

Section 115TSection 133Section 194LSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

guidelines. It was further contended that deduction of tax at source in such circumstances would result in practical difficulty and possible double taxation in the hands of investors. 5. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the explanation of the assessee and held that in view of section 115TCA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbai vs. Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1161/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

return of income on 29/04/2015, declaring interest income amounting to Rs.72,28,20,467 taxable at 10% under Article 11 of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) and claimed the exemption of commitment fees amounting to Rs.7,63,758 under Article 5 read with Article

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbai vs. Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1160/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbai vs. Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1159/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbai vs. Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1158/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Honda Trading Corporation India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Dc/ACIT, Circle 10(1), Delhi / Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5286/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 92C

transactions of commission paid and received by the Appellant with the AE(s). 16.4 The impugned order is bad in law, resulting in economic double taxation, as the transactions pertaining to commission received and paid are already included in the total international transaction value used to calculate the impugned adjustment

Bhaumik Jewellers Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1642/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1642/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bhaumik Jewellers Private The Ito बनाम/ Limited Ward-1(1)(2) V/S. 111, Gold Souk Complex Ahmedabad B/H. Sapphire Complex Cg Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcb 2423 B (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short “The Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Dated 26/07/2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short “The Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated The Confirmation Of The Addition Of Rs. 9,65,97,834/- Made By The Ao Under Section 68 Of The Act Bhaumik Jewellers Private Limited Vs. The Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

such sales can be taxed, which the assessee has duly offered for taxation. Taxing the gross receipts again u/s 68 would amount to double taxation of the same amount.. 13. The reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the case of Vaishnavi Bullion (supra) is misplaced as in that

Sri Balagopalan Jewellerymart, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai vs. DCIT, Central Cir 3(3) Chennai, Investigation Building, Chennai

In the result, the captioned appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 3946/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: FixedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

partnership deed and copies of land records of partners, which establish ownership of land by partners, but not use by the firm. Regarding alleged Double Taxation of Agricultural Income as Business Income, the Id.CIT(A) has noted as under: The appellant has further contended that the net agricultural income ... before depreciation) was again considered by the AO under the head "Business Income," thereby resulting in double taxation. On examination of the assessment order, it is seen that the entire gross agricultural income of Rs. 1,09,76,910 has been treated as "income from other sources." However

Edelweiss Crossover Opportunities Fund, Santacruz East, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Ward 22(1)(1), Piramal Chambers

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

ITA 7439/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10Section 115USection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270A

already been distributed to investors and taxed in their hands and that denial of exemption would result in double taxation. 6. It was further submitted that the difference of Rs. 16,63,15,486/- represented indexation benefit on long-term capital gains on sale of unlisted equity shares ... each scheme with SEBI is not required under the SEBI Regulations. It was submitted that denial of exemption under section 10(23FBA) results in double taxation since the same income has already been taxed in the hands of investors under section 115UB.The assessee further submitted that another scheme

Cool Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed, subject to verification as directed above

ITA 5085/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2013-14 Cool Diamond Private Ward Ito -12(1)(1), Limited, Room No. 129, Aayakar 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 97, Myco Bhawan, M K. Road, Vs. Industrial Area, Misc Industrial Mumbai – 400020. Area, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400093. Pan – Aadcc6707 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, An Information Was Received By The Ao From The Ddit (Inv.) Unit – 4 – Surat, With Regard To The Circular Transaction Of Rs.2,11,19,942/- By The Assessee With M/S. Seven Star Jewels Proprietary. On Perusing The Information, The Ao Observed That It Is Apparent That The Assessee Has Earned An Income To The Tune Of Rs.2,11,19,942/- But Has Not Included This 2 Cool Diamond Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, SR. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250

support of its case, also submitted bank statements and confirmations of the parties and further claimed that addition, if sustained, would amount to double taxation, since the transactions pertains to earlier years. 10. The Ld. Commissioner though considered the aforesaid claim of the Assessee, however, observed that the explanation offered ... justifying the addition under Section 68 of the Act. The Ld. Commissioner further observed that the Assessee has argued that the addition resulted in double taxation as the transaction pertains the earlier years, however the explanation the bereft of evidentiary support. No material has been furnished to conclusively prove that

Kishorbhai Dattani, Jam Khambhalia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Dwarka

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 555/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 555/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kishorbhai Dattani Vs. Income Tax Office, Hospital C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar 1St Road, Near Rajdhani Hotel, Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Dwarka, Gujarat 361335 Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot, Rajkot Gujarat 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakpd7272M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03 / 11 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/ 02 /2026

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

available in the books of accounts and in the return of income. The addition in total income results in taxing the same income twice (*double taxation). The appellant relies on Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Vishal Exports (Tax Appeal ... officer to be the income of the assessee, addition of the same amount once again under section 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. Having heard learned council for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we are in agreement with