← 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

Ashok Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1081/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Deep Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

course of the nature of business of the appellant and therefore is already offered for taxation. Treating the same as income would lead to double taxation which is highly unjustified and not the intention of law. Relief claimed: the addition of Rs. 26,94,500/- invoking the provision of section

Adamala Mohana, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2288/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2009-10 Adamala Mohana Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-9(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan : Afbpa7072C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.Balakrishna, Ld.Ar Revenue By: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, Ld.Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri P.Balakrishna, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, Ld.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 54F

assessee Smt.A.Mohana was not part of the computation of capital gains in the hand of Sri A.Shailender Reddy (HUF). Therefore, the question of double taxation also does not arise. Therefore, the new claim made by the Ld.AR of the appellant in the course of appellate proceedings that the appellant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Ciecle-2, Coimbatore vs. V Sathyamoorthy Co, Erode

ITA 1547/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2024AY 2020-21
For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय श्री एबी टी

V Sathyamoorthy&Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle -, Coimbatore

ITA 1024/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1024/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Dcit बनाम/ 41, Patel Road, Central Circle-2 Vs. Near Blood Bank, Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1547/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co., बनाम/ Central Circle-2 41, Patel Road, Near Blood Bank, Vs. Coimbatore. Erode-638 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

therefore, no further addition could be made in the hands of the assessee at the time of expansion thereof. The same lead to double taxation which is impermissible. All these factors lend credence to the arguments of Ld. AR. 8. During proceedings before lower authorities, the assessee has challenged

Swaroop Narain Shiv Narain, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3, Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 517/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69B

deduction under section 69C and not with reference to taxability of excess stock. 12. Ld. CIT(A) has also discussed the issue of “No Double Taxation” as well as “verifiable purchase behind the stock otherwise unexplained” at page 25 of his Order, which issues have not at all been raised

Attachmate Corporation, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 782/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

support services as Fee for Technical Services (FTS)/Fee for Included Services (FIS) under the Income Tax Act as well as under India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 3. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity and is incorporated

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Ghaziabad vs. Apk Identification, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3614/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 3614/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14)

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv and Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv
Section 154Section 263

otherwise is under question, or ii. Appeals of International taxation charges where the dispute relates to the applicability of the provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement or otherwise m. Any other case or class of cases where in the opinion of the Board it is necessary to contest

Sanmarg Project Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2528/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shir Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 37

MSME interest and Rs. 84,292/- on account of prior period expenditure. Hence, adding again of Rs. 3,82,508 will amount to be double taxation. 05. That the appellant craves to alter, leave or amend any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal

Income Tax Officer(E)-2(2), Mumbai vs. Old Girtonians Association Property Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the department is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4418/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billatya & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 11Section 148Section 2(15)Section 250

justified in giving relief and quashing the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act on the basis the assessee would have to suffer double taxation in view of the exempt amount offered for taxation in view of failure to utilize the exempt proceeds accumulated within the statutory time limit required

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 4105/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

Assessee vide letter dated 12/3/2000 date has clarified that the foreign taxes paid is of ₹ 582,463,026/– however the Double Taxation Relief and withholding tax claimed by the assessee is only ₹ 522,365,018/– and therefore the relief was allowed to that extent only. The learned assessing officer

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

Assessee vide letter dated 12/3/2000 date has clarified that the foreign taxes paid is of ₹ 582,463,026/– however the Double Taxation Relief and withholding tax claimed by the assessee is only ₹ 522,365,018/– and therefore the relief was allowed to that extent only. The learned assessing officer

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

Assessee vide letter dated 12/3/2000 date has clarified that the foreign taxes paid is of ₹ 582,463,026/– however the Double Taxation Relief and withholding tax claimed by the assessee is only ₹ 522,365,018/– and therefore the relief was allowed to that extent only. The learned assessing officer

Income Tax Officer ( International Taxation ) Ward Coimbatore, Coimbatore vs. Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Coimbatore

ITA 1614/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1613 & 1614/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Vs. 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) C.O No. 68/Chny/2024 (Arises In Ita No. 1614/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant/Cross Objector) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By The Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore. Vs. (International Taxation), (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Aakash Uppal, C.A : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 & 10.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024 :- 2 -:

Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Income Tax Officer ( International Taxation) Coimbatore, Coimbatore vs. Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Coimbatore

ITA 1613/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1613 & 1614/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Vs. 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) C.O No. 68/Chny/2024 (Arises In Ita No. 1614/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant/Cross Objector) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Aakash Uppal, C.A : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 & 10.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024 :- 2 -:

For Respondent: Shri Aakash Uppal, C.A
Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Mahesh Kumar Ladiwala Through Legal Heir Smt. Anita Ladiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed Under Section 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short Act ] By Dcit, Central Circle-01, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT (V.H)
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245D(3)Section 44ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

said action could have assisted in delivering judgement as per Income tax law which mandates fair proceedings and to tax real income and avoid double taxation. 5.4 Further, Ld. CIT(A) has further observed that the appellant has not furnished any information/evidence to rebut the finding of Ld.AO. In this

Nitin Vijay, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jaipur

ITA 12/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

assessee. Thus, both the amount received against the sales and the amount recorded as sales both cannot be added and it would be double taxation of the same money. The purchase made by the assessee is duly verifiable and not disputed. The stock record were submitted and were not disputed ... income was assessed on estimating gross profit, whether in reassessment for that year unexplained credits can be taxed and same would not amount to double taxation. No such issue is involved in the present appeal. This decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rather supports the case of the assessee

Kasree Devi, Mawana Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(1)(3), Ayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Meerut

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 250Section 250(4)Section 69A

confirmed by Ld. CIT Appeals for Cash deposited during the demonetization which has been already disclosed under the PMGKY 2016 tantamount to double taxation and is in contrary to the provision of the PMGKY 2016. 4 The following grounds of appeal have been taken up for your kind adjudication:- ➤ Grounds ... sustainable because :- ➤ Addition is in volition of clause 11(a) of CBDT circular No. 43 of 2016 dated 27.12.2016 for PMGKY-2016. ➤ Addition caused Double Taxation because appellant alreadt paid tax @ 49.9% on declare undisclosed income. 7 B-Submission Regarding addition of Rs.2,40,000/- deposit

Puneet Singh Mehndiratta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2778/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarpuneet Singh Mehndiratta, Vs. Dcit, 14/4, Ground Floor, West Circle-70(1), Patel Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aizpm6096K

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

earned from HSBC USA by the assessee in sum of Rs. 37,72,946/- in the original return of income difference thereby resulting into double taxation. The ld AO however having taxed the additional income offered by the assessee in the revised computation denied foreign tax credit

Osi Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2379/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.2379/Hyd/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

paid normally determines the rate of return on the money lent, i.e. the rate of interest. While referring to the Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions (Third Edition) under Article 11 in paragraph 115, the Hon'ble High Court held that the PLR rate, therefore, would not be applicable

Sqny Fireworks Industries, Sivakasi vs. ITO, Ward-3, Virudhunagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1232/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1232/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Sqny Fireworks Industries, The Ito, 74, Velayutham Road, Ward-3, Sivakasi – 626 123. Virudhunagar. [Pan: Abffs 5604 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 69A

cannot be legally sustained, because, the same has already been accounted as sales in the books of accounts of the assessee, and tantamount to double taxation of the same income which is against the basic fundamental principles of taxation. 9. Moreover, the assessee has filed the comparative details