“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

Mahadevan Hariharan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the penalty appeal; ITA No

ITA 2636/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 198Section 271(1)(c)

given by the AO while computing income have to be allowed as expenditure/deduction against the receipts of Rs.3,80,170/- to avoid double taxation. In case there is no such liability and asset, it means that all such expenses have already been debited/claimed as revenue expenditure and the question

Vinal Coal Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 896/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 896/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Vimal Coal Private Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. T. Hiranand Estate, Nr. Fruit Income-Tax, Market, Naroda Road, Naroda, Circle 4(1)(2), Ahmedabad-380025 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabcv 4259 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ca ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)Section 250

Assessee and the confirmation of transaction details by the seller party, M/s, HJM Fuels Pvt Ltd, presented during the proceedings before the AO. Unjustified Double Taxation through Gross Profit-Based Addition: The addition of Gross Profit at 10% on the purchase transactions ... inadvertent double taxation of the same income, as the income from subsequent sales has already been offered for taxation. Reservation of Rights: The Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend, or modify any of the grounds of appeal during the course of the appellate proceedings.” 3. The primary contention

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai, Nungambakkam vs. Avilaa Exports Private Limited, Mannady, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 770/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.770/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Avilaa Exports Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. Old No.269, New No.126, 4Th Floor, Thambu Chetty Street, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. Mannady, Chennai-600001. [Pan: Aajca 2473K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Akshit Jain, C.A Fgथ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060339451(1), Dated 31.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 15.01.2022. :- 2 -: 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Jain, C.A FGFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

company for the year under consideration was duly considered as income as Sales Turnover, and therefore, the addition of the same has resulted in double taxation of the same revenue. Once the amount is declared as turnover, it cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section ... sales turnover is added under section 68 of the Act, that will amount to double taxation, once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit, which is against the principles of taxation. Therefore. the addition made under section 68 amounting to Rs.138,83.31.016/- is hereby deleted. Accordingly, ground No.1

Kuppusamy Meiyappan, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 647/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.647/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kuppusamy Meiyappan, The Dy. Commissioner Of 2/263, Perumal Koil Medu Street, Vs. Income Tax, No.8, Seelanaickanpatty, Circle-1(1), Salem – 636 201. Salem. [Pan: Alppm 0517Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate HiथF की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059373357(1), Dated 04.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019. :- 2 -: 2. There Is A Delay Of 8 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

maintained and entries of cash are recorded properly, no addition is warranted and if the same is made that is nothing but a double taxation. I completely disagree with the interpretation of the assessee on this point. The said case laws are applicable squarely when the cash deposits are made ... opinion that when the sales has been reflected in the books of accounts and offered to tax, adding the same again would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. The cash sales / collections made from debtors by the assessee have been credited in the books of accounts

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

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

ITA 7745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

distribution tax paid by the Appellant for the subject AY. 5.1 That the learned AO erred in not invoking the provisions of India-Finland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') to determine the rate of tax on payment of dividend to the Appellant's shareholder. 5.2 That the learned AO erred

Vali Najmuddin Mithiborwala, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 22 (3) Mumbai, Piramal Chambers Mumbai

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

ITA 2688/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

failed to appreciate that: (1) The said addition is contrary to the provisions of the Act and in fact leads to double taxation in as much as first the sale value of Rs.15,37,67,024 of shares of Blue Circle Services Ltd. is added and thereafter the purchase value ... shares of Unisys Holdings from the very same sale value is again added leading to double taxation; (ii) The Appellant has rightly claimed the exemption u/s 10(38) in respect of long term capital gains of Rs.15,17,67,037/- on sale of shares of Blue Circle Services Ltd. through

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2557/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 9(1)(vi)

under the Patent Licensing Agreement as per provisions of section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act and Article 12(7) of India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('India-US tax treaty). 4 4. The Ld. AO erred in applying the provisions of Article 12(7)(b) of India

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation, Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2556/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 9(1)(vi)

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2432/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra[A.Y 2017-18]

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

under the Patent Licensing Agreement as per provisions of section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act and Article 12(7) of India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('India-US tax treaty). 4. The Ld. AO erred in applying the provisions of Article 12(7)(b) of India

Anil Kumar Ahuja, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward 2, Rewari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3004/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 69A

proceeds which was already offered to tax by assessee and admitted by revenue as revenue receipt, impugned addition made under section 68, resulting in double taxation, were liable to be deleted. [PB.Pg.Nos. 89 to 91]. CIT Vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. Tax Appeal No.2471 of 2009, dated 03/07/2012 [Guj.HC ... Assessing Officer to be income of the assessee, addition of the same amount once again under section 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of the same income", [PB.Pg.Nos. 92 to 96]. K.S.Kannan Kunhi Vs. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 757 (Kerala.HC): The question raised by the assessee