“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

Dhanabalan Selvamuthu Kumar, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Erode

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

ITA 1011/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

cash advances already received by the assessee and partly accepted by the Department. 17. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to avoid double taxation of the same source, we hold that the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs.39,95,000/- made

Mandyam Krishnakumar Sathyanarayana, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1233/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri GS Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250Section 44ASection 56Section 57

receipts of ₹7,43,000 declared by the assessee under section 44ADA of the Act. It was contended that such treatment has resulted in double taxation of the very same income. 6.1 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AR further submitted that even if such receipts are held

R and B Falcon A Pty Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 128/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 128/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2022-23 R & B Falcon A Pty Ltd., Vs Acit, Office No. 402, 4Th Floor, One Circle-2, Boulevard Lake, Boulevard Road, Dehradun, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai Uttarakhand-248001 Lit S.O. Mumbai-400076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccr5345Q Assessee By : Sh. Amit Arora, Ca & Sh. Vishal Mishra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2022-23, Arises Against The Cit(A)-3, Noida’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1076592383(1) Dated 30.05.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 244A

interest on income tax refund amounting to Rs.2,02,05,584/- to be chargeable to tax @15% under article 11 of the India-Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). Both the learned representatives invite out attention to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion upholding the Assessing Officer’s action ... claim of the Appellant that the same be taxable at the rate of 15 percent in terms of Article 11 of India-Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Further, the appellant has contended that the AO has erred in alleging the interest income to be effectively connected to a Permanent Establishment

Urban Administration Amd Development, Bhopal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Bhopal

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

ITA 477/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidirectorate Of Urban Deputy बनाम/ Administrations & Development, Commissioner Of Vs. Nagar Palika Bhawan, 6 No.Bus Income Tax-Tds, Stop, R.S.Market, Bhopal S.O. Huzur, Bhopal(M.P.) (Tan: Bpldo1618B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. & Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

appreciating that the HUDCO has already paid taxes on the interest earned by them and levying of TDS provision again on deductor would imply double taxation of same income. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in determining short deduction of TDS of Rs.2

Mahtab Chand Agarwal, Lucknow vs. DCIT-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 515/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Mahtab Chand Agarwal, V. The Dcit-6 15, Ajanta Market, Near P.K. Complex, Ram Gurdwara, Nishatganj, Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226010. Lucknow-208001. Pan:Aeipa6452N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 04 11 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 01 2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT- DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

pointed out that, since the sales had already Page 5 of 7 been duly recorded and offered to tax, the addition resulted in double taxation of the same income. It was further submitted that the deposits in the said bank account stood fully explained by the sale of existing stock

Income-Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Furnish Home, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the asessee is allowed, whereas, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1671/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), wherein detailed submissions supported by the books of accounts, statutory returns, confirmation and other documentary evidences were filed. A remand report of the AO was sought on the same by the Ld. CIT(A) after considering which, Ld. CIT(A) deleted

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 68Section 69

from the bank, established a legitimate cash trail explaining the source of deposits. It was further argued that taxing such deposits would lead to double taxation, as the sales income had already been accounted for in the appellant's books and tax filings. 4. Analysis and Decision: Upon careful consideration

Furnish Home, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1) Old Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the asessee is allowed, whereas, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1439/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 68Section 69

Ravikiran Gopalrao Alavandi, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 2939/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2939/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Anup Shaha

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

Rs.6,35,346/- in the original return of income filed on 29.10.2021 u/s.90/91 of the Act read with Article 23 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany. However, assessee has not filed Form No.67. Return processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 05.07.2022 disallowing the FTC claimed

Jitendra Nanasaheb Thorat, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Nashik

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

ITA 2307/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2307/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jitendra Nanasaheb Thorat, V Income Tax Officer, A-7, Chaitrapalavi Apartment, S Ward-2(4), Nashik. Ashok Marg, Near Bank Of Maharashtra, Behind Fame Cinema, Nashik – 422006. Pan: Afypt8886Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meema –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 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(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2011-12 Dated 28.07.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

fact, interest received on Fixed Deposits made by the appellant and was duly disclosed in the return filed u/s 148 which tantamount to double taxation of same income and therefore, the said addition deserves to be deleted. 8] The appellant craves leave to add/alter/ amend any of the grounds

Balan Logeswaran, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruchengode

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2312/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

bank account where instead of considering each deposit and withdrawals the AO makes addition of only the highest net amount outstanding to avoid double taxation. The principle of peak credit proceeds on the fundamental premise that the money deposited and/or withdrawn from the assessee's bank account belongs

ITO (It)- 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7523/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Mr. Ajit Kumar Jain

Section 195Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 971

Even when we look into the matter from the standpoint of Double "74. Even when we look into the matter from the standpoint of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), the case of the appellant gets Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), the case of the appellant gets Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA ... OECD) boost. The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) boost. The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has framed a model of Double Taxation Avoidance has framed a model of Double Taxation Avoidance has framed a model of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DAA) entered into by India

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internatonal Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 887/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

General Reinsurance Ag, Cologne, Germany vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4691/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1548/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

learned ACIT has erred in disallowing the exclusion of profits of branches in countries with whom India has entered into a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) namely United Kingdom (UK), France, Belgium, Kenya, Japan, USA, Singapore, China, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and South Africa amounting to Rs.1440 ... raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the exclusion of income of foreign branches situated in countries with which India has entered into the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 15. During the hearing, the learned AR fairly agreed that this issue has been decided against the assessee in its own case

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1547/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

learned ACIT has erred in disallowing the exclusion of profits of branches in countries with whom India has entered into a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) namely United Kingdom (UK), France, Belgium, Kenya, Japan, USA, Singapore, China, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and South Africa amounting to Rs.1440 ... raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to the exclusion of income of foreign branches situated in countries with which India has entered into the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 15. During the hearing, the learned AR fairly agreed that this issue has been decided against the assessee in its own case

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

ITA 1452/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1451/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

learned ACIT has erred in disallowing the exclusion of profits of branches in countries with whom India has entered into a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) namely United Kingdom (UK), France, Belgium, Kenya, Japan, USA, Singapore, China, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and South Africa amounting to Rs.1440 ... raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to the exclusion of income of foreign branches situated in countries with which India has entered into the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 15. During the hearing, the learned AR fairly agreed that this issue has been decided against the assessee in its own case

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internatonal Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2448/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2447/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai

ITA 929/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80H

dividend to non- resident shareholders should be at the rate specified in the relevant article dealing with taxability of dividends in the agreement of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the country of residence of the non-resident shareholders and ought to have consequently granted a refund