← 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

Asian Paints Limited, Santacruz vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 2696/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the grounds are sustained and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3230/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2021-22 Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Vs Dcit, Lakeview Drive, Circle 2(2)(2), Airside Business Park, International Taxation, Swords, Co. Dublin, K67 N2N9, New Delhi. Ireland. Pan: Aadcn5762E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Ms Viyushti Rawat, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.08.2023 Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Drp’) In Objection No.220 Dated 20.01.2023 Arising Out Of The Objection Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

assessee is a foreign company incorporated in Ireland and is a tax resident of Ireland in accordance of Article 4 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Ireland (Tax Treaty’ or ‘DTAA’). It is the principal distributor and licensor for NCR software and hardware products and related support

Tiger Global Eight Holdings, Mauritius vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 2345/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Tiger Global Eight Holdings, Vs Dcit, C/O 202 Rajnigandha International Taxation, Apartment, Circle 3(1)(1), Prof. V.S. Agashe Path, New Delhi. Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028, Maharashtra. Pan: Aafct0276M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate; Shri Manish Kant, Advocate; & Ms Amrita Shenoy & Hetal Jakharia, Cas Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)

Cayman Islands, there are no income, estate, transfer, sale or other taxes applicable to the Company. The Company obtains benefits under the double taxation treaty between Mauritius and China. Under the current treaty, subject to certain conditions, an entity which is a tax resident in Mauritius, but has no branch

R1 Rcm Holdco Inc. (Formerly Known As R1 Rcm Inc.), Usa vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2044/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92C

third party (such as Microsoft) software licenses is taxable as royalty under the Income- Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) and the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’), based on the findings made in the final assessment order. In doing so: a. The Ld. AO has erred in holding that

Superb Mind Holdings Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1832/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1832/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2020-21) M/S. Superb Mind Holdings Ltd., C/O Anita & Gadia, Chartered Accountant, F-45, Bhagat Singh Market, New Delhi 110001 Pan Aazcs-2945-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 112Section 143(3)Section 195

Circular of CBDT No.789/2000, Article 13(4) of India – Mauritius DTAA, press release of CBDT on Protocol of amendment of convention for avoidance of double taxation and the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 5 ITA 1832/Del/2023 (AY 2020-21) case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union

Mixpanel Inc., Usa vs. ACIT Circle- 2(2)(1) Int.Taxation., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1996/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

submitted that the revenue in nature of business income being earned by the Company is not taxable in India as per the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'), as it does not have a permanent establishment in India. The details of revenue earned are provided in the return ... sale of software is taxable as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') under the Act, and Fees for Included Services ('FIS) under the India - USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP has itself admitted that the amounts received

Itochu Corporation, Japan vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 760/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT( DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

permanent establishment is concerned the AO had alleged existence of dependent agent PE in India in terms of Article 5 of the India-Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') and thereby assessing the income attributable to the alleged PE amounting to Rs.89,50,61,139. Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that ... India'), and other agents constitute a dependent agent Permanent Establishment (PE') of the appellant in India in terms of Article & of the India- Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA'). 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ll. AO has failed to appreciate that

Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 352/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 352/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Adv. B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav,CIT( DR)
Section 35Section 92B

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

ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 321/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 352/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Adv. B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav,CIT( DR)
Section 35Section 92B

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

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kundan Jewellers, Mumbai

In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4493/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Challenging The Validity Of Reopening U/S.147 On The Following Grounds:- “1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Of The Assessee Challenging The Validity Of Reassessment, Which Is Time-Barred Considering The Provisions Of The Act. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Reassessment Made Is Time Barred & Therefore The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 2 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Additional Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee During The Course Of The Appeal Proceedings. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Issue Of Statutory Notices /S. 148 Of The Act By The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Is In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act & The Notifications Issued Thereunder. Accordingly The Reassessment In Pursuance Of Such Notices Is Invalid & Deserves To Be Quashed.”

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 68

Audited Profit & Loss account as income and if the cash deposits are 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." iii. Analysis of Financial results & Books of Accounts

Neeraj Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi

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

ITA 1591/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2019-20

For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 3Section 69A

Vaults Private Limited. The books and the details so filed have not been rejected and also the additions so made would result in double taxation. It is further case of the assessee that without rejection of books, the additions on account of unexplained cash cannot be made dehors the cash

ACIT, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Esakkimuthu Muthuvel Iyappan, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 794/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.794/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Esakkimuthu Muthuvel Iyappan, Income Tax, No.4, Highways Road, Circle 1, Tisayanvilai, Tirunelveli 627 011. Tirunelveli 627 657. [Pan : Arupm 4796J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee. When the sales has been reflected in the books of accounts and offered to tax, adding the same would amount to double taxation which is impermissible in law. The books are subjected to Tax Audit u/s 44AB and the assessee has maintained quantitative details of the stock-in-trade

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. Addl.CIT(TDS), Jaipur

ITA 643/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

case, all the deductees have already paid the tax on such income and further deduction of tax goes to double taxation and interest thereon also very harsh on us as well as on deductees also, hence we would like to pray before your honour to accept our appeal and condone

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. ITO TDS-1, Jaipur

ITA 642/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

case, all the deductees have already paid the tax on such income and further deduction of tax goes to double taxation and interest thereon also very harsh on us as well as on deductees also, hence we would like to pray before your honour to accept our appeal and condone

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. ITO TDS-1, Jaipur

ITA 641/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

case, all the deductees have already paid the tax on such income and further deduction of tax goes to double taxation and interest thereon also very harsh on us as well as on deductees also, hence we would like to pray before your honour to accept our appeal and condone

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. Addl.CIT(TDS), Jaipur

ITA 640/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

case, all the deductees have already paid the tax on such income and further deduction of tax goes to double taxation and interest thereon also very harsh on us as well as on deductees also, hence we would like to pray before your honour to accept our appeal and condone

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. ITO TDS-1, Jaipur

ITA 639/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

case, all the deductees have already paid the tax on such income and further deduction of tax goes to double taxation and interest thereon also very harsh on us as well as on deductees also, hence we would like to pray before your honour to accept our appeal and condone

Shailesh K. Wadnere, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-2(2), Kalyan

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in

ITA 793/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 69

immovable properties had already been made as unexplained investments of Rs. 12.82,92,500/- and thus, such addition has led to a case of double taxation, 6.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 69 of alleged Shri ... already been made under "Short Term Capital Gain' and thus such addition has led to a case of double taxation; Shri Shailesh K. Wadnere 8.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Salary income

Shailesh K. Wadnere, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-2(2), Kalyan

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in

ITA 738/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 69

immovable properties had already been made as unexplained investments of Rs. 12.82,92,500/- and thus, such addition has led to a case of double taxation, 6.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 69 of alleged Shri ... already been made under "Short Term Capital Gain' and thus such addition has led to a case of double taxation; Shri Shailesh K. Wadnere 8.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Salary income

Cosmos Maya India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Central Processing Center, ITO-16(1)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2543/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Akshay Tapadiya, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)

case is that the assessee is a private limited company, resident of India and eligible to the treaty benefits of India Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2024 2 assessee is engaged in the business of production of animation TV serials. Return of income for the year