“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

DCIT Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kaustubh Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3184/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramachandran, Sr. DR

relating to AY 2013-14 and 2014 14 and 2014-15 were settled in AY 2020-21, it amounts to 21, it amounts to double taxation. The Ld. CIT(A) hel double taxation. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the appellant company is d that the appellant company is entitled

Pfizer Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax- 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3173/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

For Respondent: Shri Pratik Poddar & Shri Shreyas

Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 234Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

DCIT(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2342/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

common issue is with regard to taxability of administrative support service charges as fees for technical services (FTS) in terms of Article 13 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India – United Kingdom (UK). CO Nos. 100 to 103/Mum/2024 Jefferies International Ltd. 7. Briefly stated, facts relating to these issues

DCIT(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2341/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1775/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1774/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Loveen Babu Vuppala, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1121/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Loveen Babu Vuppala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan : Alppv1796E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Kolkata, Pertaining To A.Y.2021-22 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Not Admitting The Appeal 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

that Section 90, Section 90A and Section 91 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 have been drafted specifically to avoid the burden of double taxation. 7. In the present case, even though the petitioner had not uploaded Form-67 while filing return of tax, later he uploaded the same

R. Neelima Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 45

considering that the AO erred in raising the wrongful demand relating to Capital Gain in AY 2015-16 which will tantamount to double taxation without appreciating the fact that the assessee has already offered the same in the ROI in the Asst. year 2018-19 where transfer took place ... already paid her taxes of capital gain in A.Y. 2018-19, the addition made by the Ld. AO in A.Y. 2015-16 leads to double taxation in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed for deletion of the addition made

Sumo Logic, Inc., Usa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3350/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Assessment Year : 2021-22 Sumo Logic, Inc. Vs. Acit, Circle Int. Tax 3(1)(2), 3Rd Floor, 305 Main Street, Delhi. Redwood City, California, Foreign, United States. C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Tower-B, 7Th Floor, Building 10, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon-122002. (Pan: Abecs 9368 P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv. & Shri Aditya Rathore, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Vijay B Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2024 Date Of Order : 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. The Captioned Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2023 Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

held that it is, therefore, not possible for us to accept the contentions so strenuously urged on behalf of the respondents that avoidance of double taxation can arise only when tax is actually paid in one of the Contracting States. Further, he brought to our notice page ... which Hon’ble Court has observed that “as we read article 13(4)(c) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, it becomes manifest that the mere furnishing of service would not suffice and a liability of tax would be triggered only if the technical or consultancy service were coupled with

M/S. M B M Developers, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2091/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv C. Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 40

same addition of income to the income assessed u/s 143(1), which is income as per ITR filed by the assessee which amounts to double taxation. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the provisions of the law the A.O, as well as the Honourable

Beachwood Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5516/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarbeachwood Properties V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, बनाम Income Tax Central Circle- Commerz, 3Rd Floor, 4(1), Room No. 419, Kautilya International Business Park, Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Oberio Garden City Off Complex, Bandra, Mumbai Western Express Highway, 400051, Maharashtra Goregaon, Mumbai 400 067, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcb1399P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Tarang MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 245CSection 69C

that cash income, cash expenditure was noted. Addition of such cash expenditure in the hands of the Appellant would tantamount to double taxation, firstly as cash income in the hands of Mr. Vikas Oberoi in the Settlement proceedings and again in the hands of the Appellant as cash expenditure. Once

Kamran Zubair, Kanpur vs. The AO Circle-1(2)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 84/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kamran Zubair V. The Assessing Officer 112/349-D, Swaroop Nagar Circle 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaepz7118E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271ASection 69A

erred in confirming addition of Rs.27,50,000/- u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 rws 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 leading to double taxation as the cash deposit has already been considered in the return of income. 4. The the Id.CIT(A) has erred in not providing

Kasturi Lal, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Khanna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

included as part of the overall sale reported to tax and therefore the addition of Rs. 13,87,000/- so made will amounted to double taxation. 9. It was accordingly submitted that the cash book so submitted before the lower authorities from 02/12/2016 to 29/12/2016 shows closing cash balance

Rameshwar Dnyaneshwar Bandewar, Parbhani vs. ITO Ward Hingoli, Hingoli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2402/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

Rs.23,12,430/- after claiming credit for Foreign Tax paid of Rs.3,67,711/- u/s.90 read with Article 24(2) of India-Norway Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. However, the Form No.67 was filed by the appellant on 30.03.2021. The CPC, Bangalore, vide Intimation dated 24.12.2021 denied the claim for credit

Nandkumar Chandra, Pune vs. ITO Ward 13(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2329/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

Rs.25,27,840/- after claiming credit for Foreign Tax paid of Rs.3,69,731/- u/s.90 read with Article 24(2) of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. However, the Form No.67 was filed by the appellant on 22.03.2019. The CPC, Bangalore, vide Intimation dated 23.05.2020 denied the claim for credit

Poonam Rahul Anand, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2147/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2147/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Poonam Rahul Anand, V The Income Tax Officer, Anands Plot No.70, S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Niwas River View, Savarkar Nagar, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422007. Pan: Addpa4704D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 16.07.2024 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 224 Days In Filing The Appeal Against The Asst. Order U/S 147 Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause & The Same Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice.

Section 147Section 148Section 250

full amount of alleged unaccounted sale consideration of Rs.62,50,000 as undisclosed income in hands of the assessee which had resulted into double taxation of the same amount which has also been subjected to tax in hands of the husband of the assessee and thus, denial of adjudication

M/S. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

Section 115Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 4

case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not granting the benefit of Article 11 of the India- Italy Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA') in determining the Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') payable, without appreciating the fact that the dividend declared and paid by the Appellant ... Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) represents tax on dividend income, the Appellant should be granted the benefit of Article II of the India-Italy double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA”), that the dividend declared and paid by the Appellant to Piaggio & C. S.p.A., Italy, 5 being tax on dividend income should

Pyramid Developers, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Comm. of Income Tax Circle 32(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2409/MUM/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalpyramid Developers, 2Nd Floor, Sharda Bhavan, Nanda Patkar Road, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai- 400 005, Pan: Aaifp1958J ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle 32(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chajed a/w VeetragFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 43CSection 53A

appreciating that the appellant followed Project completion method. The same income is offered in AY 2017-18. Therefore, the said addition is resultant in double taxation. The appellant craves leaves to add, to delete or amend any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing ... purposes of income tax in the year 2017-18; hence the same cannot be sustained here as the same will tantamount to double taxation. On principle, we are agreed with the submission of the assessee that if the figure of Rs. 5, 29, 67,033/- is included in the figure

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Smt. Saroj Bhatia, Delhi

ITA 3968/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 153A

amount of Rs. 3,12,47,867/- han already been added to the income of husband of Assessee on SUBSTANTIVE basis resulting into double taxation. 4.1.4 In Ground No. 4, the appellant has contended that the Assessing Officer has made additions which are not correct on the basis of facts

ACIT Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Sahil Tradewell Marketing Privated Limited, Gurgaon

ITA 321/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 153A