“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

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota Gadepan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Savina-Udaipur

ITA 694/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Adv. & Shri Mukesh SoniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 195Section 263Section 90

following issues:- S. No. Issues Stock Valuation i. ii. Claim of Any other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP iii. Double Taxation Relief u/s 90/91 iv. Exports/Imports v. Reduction of Income in Revised Return & Claim of Refund vi. Refund Claim vii. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment viii. Expenses Incurred ... provisions of Article 9 (Associated enterprises) of the Convention between the Republic of India and the Kingdom of Morocco for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income (Notification no. GSR 245E, dated 15.03.2000 where: (a)and enterprise of a Contracting

Vargshese Paul, Banglaore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 5(3)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 584/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavvarghese Paul Acit, Circle - 5(3)(2) B604, Duo Harmony Room No. 59, 6Th Floor 1, Suranjan Das Road Hmt Bhvan, No. 59, Bellary Vs. New Thippasandra Post Road, Ganga Nagar Bangalore 560075 Bengaluru 560032 Pan – Aevpp6357A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Bengaluru Dated 24.02.2023 Having Din No. Itba/Apl/M/250/ 2022-23/1050096242(1) & Relates To Ay 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds Of Appeal. Ground No. 1 & 5 Are General In Nature. In Ground Nos. 2 & 3 The Assessee Had Challenged The Applicability Of Article 4 Of India Us Dtaa To The Case Of The Assessee. In Ground No. 4 The Assessee Has Challenged The Denial Of Benefit Of Exemption Available To The Assessee Under Article 16 Of The India Us Dtaa. Beside These Grounds The Assessee Has Also Filed An Application On 29.07.2024 & Raised

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 90

grant the benefits of taxes paid abroad 5 Varghese Paul by the assessee vis-a-vis the income earned to avoid double taxation of same income. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th

Mohammed Shabbeer Husain Kembhui, Yadgir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 and AY

ITA 1702/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 68

grounds contending that section 68 cannot be applied in respect of income from a source which has already been taxed which would amount to double taxation. The assessee also raised the additional ground that no addition can be made u/s. 68 where the books of accounts have been rejected

Mohammed Shabbeer Husain Kembhui, Yadgir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 and AY

ITA 1701/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 68

Kaisha Lifesciences Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissionr of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4311/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 35Section 68

already included in the disallowance of Rs. 28,03,707/- and hence the same could not be disallowed again leading to double taxation.” 3. The issue arising in ground no.2, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to the addition on account of the unsecured loan under section

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. Shri Vitthalbhai Madhavlal Patel, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1358/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)

which is contrary to accounting principles as Income (Source) and Application (Investment) both cannot be taxed, as it would amount to double taxation. The higher figure of investment (source of fund or application of fund) could be taxed as per the provision of law. I.T.A Nos. 1247 & 1358/Ahd/2019

Shri Vitthalbhai Madhavlal Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1247/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)

Chandan Hassanand Lokwani, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1358/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1358/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Chandan Hassanand Lokwani, V The Assistant 2 Jawahar Market, Nashik Road, S Commissioner Of Maharashtra – 422101. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan : Abcpl7072N Nashik. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Dated 18.05.2024. 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 108 Days In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause & The Said Delay Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice. 2) The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That In This Case, The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Was Made By The A.O. Towards Non Deduction Of Tds On Interest Paid To Three Nbfc In Spite Of The Fact That The Appellant Had Furnished Ca Certificate In Form 26A To Prove That The Payees Had Offered The Interest To Tax & Paid Taxes Thereon & Hence, The Said Addition Resulted Into Double Taxation Of The Same Income & Therefore, The Impugned Delay Of 108 Days In Filing Appeal Ought To Have Been Condoned In View Of The Ratio Laid Down By Hon'Ble Madras High Court In Case Of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. V. Cit [248 Itr 681].

Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 40

Form 26A to prove that the payees had offered the interest to tax and paid taxes thereon and hence, the said addition resulted into double taxation of the same income and therefore, the impugned delay of 108 days in filing appeal ought to have been condoned in view

DCIT., (Internation Taxation)-2, Hyderabad vs. Virtusa International B V, Netherland

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 727/HYD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Nidhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234C

company without appreciating the fact that the ITA No.727/Hyd/2024 2 TDS on dividend income was made @5% only instead of 10% as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Netherlands and thus there was short deduction of TDS resulting into tax liability as at the end of the financial year ... payee company without appreciating the fact that the TDS on dividend income was made @5% only instead of 10% as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Netherlands by availing Most Favoured Nation clause benefit and subsequently paid tax by way of self assessment tax after the ruling

M Radhakrishnan Nair, Ernakulam vs. The ITO Ward 2(3), Kochi

ITA 441/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

business purposes and the appellant is under the honest belief that the same cannot be subjected to deduction of Tax as there may be double taxation. 3. The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) at National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in disallowing a sum of 1,68,30,482/- towards

Vamsi Krishna Ayyalasomayajula, Telangana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1469/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Vaidehi G., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 6(1)Section 90(2)

taxed USA sourced income of INR 40,86,983 claimed u/s 90(2) of the Act, read with Article 25 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (`DTAA'). 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to interpret Rule 128 liberally and take cognizance of the fact that the filing

Saket Kanoi, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3243/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

found that the assessee was not covered by the article 2 of the tax treaty and also, it was not a case of double taxation. The income had not suffered tax anywhere in the world. Accordingly, vide show cause dated 02.12.2022, the assessee was afforded an opportunity to explain ... Saket Kanoi (a) Whether provisions of the double tax avoidance agreement between India and UAE can be invoked even when there is no double taxation? (b) Can tax treaty impose tax liability when there is no domestic tax law on the matter? (c) Can tax treaty provisions be invoked when

Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 625/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR

Section 28Section 40Section 92C

Government of any other country outside India under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation then in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act, shall apply to the extent they are more

Gs Strategic Investments Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, International Tax Circle-2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4401/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153(1)Section 74

term capital gains ("LTCG") amounting to INR 3,01,51,81,694 that were claimed as exempt under Article 13 of the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") 4. The learned AO/DRP have therefore erred in law and on facts in allowing the carry forward of only the balance ... capital gains earned by the Appellant during the relevant previous year are exempt from tax in India in view of Article 13 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Mauritius [for short ‘DTAA’]. Since there is no taxable income during the current year, the provisions of Section

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Thane vs. Sujata Pramod Dalvi, Virar East

In the result assessee’sground no

ITA 3521/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Mr. Mani Jain & Prateek JainFor Respondent: Smt.Madhu Malti Ghosh (CIT

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69ASection 69C

course of search and therefore the latter sum cannot be considered again for the purposes of taxation as it would amount to double taxation. We thus uphold the Ld. CIT(A)'s action of allowing the telescoping benefit and set-off of the amount of intangible profits aggregating of Rs.20.79