← All Phrases

“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
97
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

Sanjjay Saumyha, Salem vs. Principal CIT, Coimbatore

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 392/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.392/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mrs. Sanjjay Saumyha Pcit बनाम/ 251 A, Omalur Main Road, Swarnapuri, Coimbatore-1. Vs. Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeyps-0117-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. R. Mohan Reddy (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 14Section 147Section 263Section 40

accepted by Ld. AO and the same was, in fact, only possible view in the matter. The Ld. AR also raised the issue of double taxation. The written submissions have also been filed vide letter dated 25-10-2024 which have duly been considered while adjudicating the appeal ... adopting cost of acquisition accordingly. Therefore, the plea that if the interest component is taxed in this year, the same would amount to double taxation, is fallacious and hence, not acceptable. The cost shall include both the components in terms of Sec. 49(2A). There is no quarrel

Sahil Singla, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1018/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 271ASection 68Section 69Section 69A

appellant, which were given to the appellant out of genuine credits received 24 during the year under consideration. This, had resulted into double taxation, which is not permitted under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 31. M/s Evershine Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 31.1 The appellant had received unsecured loans from M/s Evershine ... Resorts Pvt. Ltd. out of sale proceeds received on sale of its land and genuine credits received during the year. This, had resulted into double taxation, which is not permitted under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 31.8 Reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter

Jaykumar Nemichand Jain, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 944/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.944/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jaykumar Nemichand Jain Huf The Ito बनाम Jain Silver Palace Ward-5(2)(2) / 39, Chinubhai Towers Ahmedabad V/S. Ashram Road Opp. Handloom House Ahmedabad – 380 009 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadhj 7308 F अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

once the sales were recorded in the books and offered for tax, taxing the same under Section 69A of the Act would amount to double taxation. 8.1. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents, including Sobha Devi Dilipkumar vs. ITO, ACIT vs. Chandra Surana, ITO vs. J.K. Wood India

Daechang Seat Co Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1301/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Daechang Seat Co Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 491, Mannur Village, Valarpuram V. Income Tax, Post, Sriperumbudur Tk, International Taxation 1(1), Kancheepuram District – 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aadcd-4448-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, Ca : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, CA
Section 143(1)Section 250

offered the guarantee fee received during the year in the return of" income, despite it being taxable only in Korea as per provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India and Korea. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the case and has erroneously concluded ... failed to appreciate that the guarantee fees received by Appellant arises only in Korea (contracting state) in terms of Article 22 Other Income' of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') between Republic of Korea and India and hence, the same is not taxable in India. 2.5 The Ld. CIT(A) based

Indus Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4730/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

under section 115BBE of the Act without a corresponding reduction in the business income (wherein the said amount has already been included), resulting in double taxation; 3. Assessee is engaged in the business of trading and derivatives transactions in shares and securities and brokerage on investments. Assessee filed its return ... material has been placed on record, making addition once again of the same amount on the same transaction u/s.68 of the Act, tantamount to double taxation of the same income. We are in agreement with the submissions made by the ld. Counsel and accordingly, delete the addition so made

Hcl Technologies Norway As, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2300/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

purposes of making or earning income from a source outside India (by providing onsite services). 7. Payments not chargeable to tax under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") 7.1 Without prejudice and law the in the alternate, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in DRP/assessing officer

Hcl Australia Services Pty Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2299/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

purposes of making or earning income from a source outside India (by providing onsite services). 7. Payments not chargeable to tax under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") 7.1 Without prejudice and law the in the alternate, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in DRP/assessing officer

Hcl Singapore Pte. Ltd (Successor to Axon Solutions Singapore Pte Limited), Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2298/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

purposes of making or earning income from a source outside India (by providing onsite services). 7. Payments not chargeable to tax under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") 7.1 Without prejudice and law the in the alternate, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in DRP/assessing officer

Modinagar Rolls Pvt. Ltd., Modinagar vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1106/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37

liability not claimed as The additions towards contingent liability not claimed as The additions towards contingent liability not claimed as expenditure would result in double taxation. expenditure would result in double taxation. 7. As per para 7.4 of the first appellate order, Ld.CIT(A) has not entertained para

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. Ci Hospitality Worldwide Private Limited, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is allowed and Cross

ITA 449/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 253(3)

also contended that “………..it is not the case of Assessing Officer that receipts are not taxed subsequently and by no sermon of reasoning double taxation can be allowed on same receipt in different years”. This, again, is a wrong contention. If the assessee indulges in underreporting of income

Geeta Sharma, Sunam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala

ITA 476/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: ShriRohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253Section 263Section 44ASection 80T

same registered purchase deed cannot be made the basis of reopening of case for another AY i.e. 2019-20 as it will lead to double taxation of same amount. (iii) There is no provision in law to tax income

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT(OSD) Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1621/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 90

respectively. These royalty incomes were already taxed in China on gross basis at 10% under Article 23[2] of the India-China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [hereinafter referred as Indo-China Tax Treaty]. Further these royalty incomes already been accepted to be at Arm’s Length Price by TPO while ... China as admissible under Article 23[2] of Indo-China Tax Treaty. Thus the assessee requested the Ld AO to grant relief from double taxation as admissible u/s.90 of the Act amounting to Rs.16,22,63,445/ and Rs.11,05,97,227/ relevant to the asst. years

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1517/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 90

respectively. These royalty incomes were already taxed in China on gross basis at 10% under Article 23[2] of the India-China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [hereinafter referred as Indo-China Tax Treaty]. Further these royalty incomes already been accepted to be at Arm’s Length Price by TPO while ... China as admissible under Article 23[2] of Indo-China Tax Treaty. Thus the assessee requested the Ld AO to grant relief from double taxation as admissible u/s.90 of the Act amounting to Rs.16,22,63,445/ and Rs.11,05,97,227/ relevant to the asst. years

Roshan Tin Printers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3783/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Roshan Tin Printers Private Limited Dcit-13(3)(2) 501, Building No. 315, Mumbai Om Gayatri Chs, Ram Narayan Narkar Vs. Marg, Ghatlopar (E), Mumbai-400 705

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 40Section 43B

opportunity to file the submissions. The addition of Rs.17,49,471/- made in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act amounts to double taxation. 2 Roshan Tin Printers Private Limited vs. DCIT 2. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.14,66,773/- under section ... while filing the return of income, Thus, the addition made by the CPC amounts to double taxation and the same may be deleted. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.82,397/- under section 43B of the Act on account of non-payment

Late Hina Harendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3317/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

Appellant in Assessment Year 2013-14 on the grounds that the brokerage income had accrued in that year. This has resulted in double taxation of the same income, and therefore, it was submitted the addition made by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2013-14 ought to be deleted

Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3316/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/O S R B C & Associates Llp, 14Th 16Th Floor, Room No. 1615, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadcm 5927 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Moti LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Somogyan Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253

prior to 1 April 2017) were exempt from tax under the Double ant (prior to 1 April 2017) were exempt from tax under the Double Taxation avoidance agreement entered into between the Government of Taxation avoidance agreement entered into between the Government of Taxation avoidance agreement entered into between ... avoidance of relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to an assessee to whom such taxation, then, in relation to an assessee to whom such taxation, then, in relation

Nihilent Limited, Pune vs. PCIT-2, Pune

ITA 929/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash
Section 139Section 263Section 90

along with Form no. 67. Since this case was selected for complete scrutiny with one of the reasons for selection being the verification of Double Taxation relief u/s 90/91, it was incumbent upon the FAO to examine all the conditions stipulated for that purpose. Failure to do so and consequential

Nihilent Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

ITA 928/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash
Section 139Section 263Section 90

along with Form no. 67. Since this case was selected for complete scrutiny with one of the reasons for selection being the verification of Double Taxation relief u/s 90/91, it was incumbent upon the FAO to examine all the conditions stipulated for that purpose. Failure to do so and consequential

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5, Pune vs. Sangam Press Private Limited, Pune

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 674/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.674/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Circle-5, Pune. Vs. Sangam Press Private Limited, 17-B, Sangam House, Sangam Press Road, Pune- 411038. Pan : Aaccs5995B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Assessee By Shri C. H. Naniwadekar : Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, [In Short The “Cit(A)”] Pune’S Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023- 24/1060642739(1), Dated 08.02.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 43C

stand the estimated the income on conjecture and surmises. 12. Even if the stand of the AO is accepted, it will lead to double taxation as the income is offered in subsequent years. The income assessed in AY 2017-18 should be allowed as an deduction ... Copy attached]. Prayer: - In view of the above, kindly delete the addition made by the A.O. on merits and also to save from the double taxation levied by the A.O.” 3.5 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contentions. On perusal of the same

ACIT (Central)-2, Bhopal vs. Hariom Properties, Bhopal

ITA 295/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 43CSection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO