“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

Rane Engine Valves Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1498/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 143(3)

have appreciated that since the services are rendered by an individual Non-Resident the same is covered under Article 14 of India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) as Independent Personal Services' and as the same is not taxable in India by virtue of the specific exclusion contemplated under Article ... between India and Germany. In this case it was held that the expression "professional services" in article 14 of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between Germany and India is wide enough to include services, if any, rendered by the applicant as an engineer and marketing consultancy services rendered

Rane Engine Valves Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1497/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 143(3)

Tessolve Semiconductor Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 310/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

credit for foreign taxes. Article 24(4)(a) is relevant in the present context. Same is extracted below: “4. In the case of India, double taxation shall be avoided as follows: (a) the amount of Australian tax paid under the laws of Australia and in accordance with the provisions

Jeevanprasad Narottambhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 676/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

incurred for carrying out agricultural activities while furnishing return of income and therefore, additional disallowance of Rs.7,40,193/- would lead to double taxation.” 3. As per the information, the revenue noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.11,25,250/- with his savings bank account with HDFC Bank

Aapc Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3342/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. S.K Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR)

Section 234ASection 270A

Loyalty Programme, Reservation Fee and Marketing Fee as Royalty/Fee For Technical Services ('FTS') under the Act and under Article 12 of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA’). 1.3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in concluding ... private limited company incorporated in Singapore and is a tax resident of Singapore within the meaning of Article 4 of the India-Singapore Double Taxation 3 1868 & 3342/Del/2023 AAPC Singapore Pte. Ltd., Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'/ 'Tax Treaty'). The assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in Singapore

Aapc Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1868/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. S.K Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR)

Section 234ASection 270A

Shobha Tomar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, C.C.1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 68

deposits in bank in form of demonetized currency notes out of same declared sources was again taxed as the same amounts to double taxation, not permitted by Income tax Act 1961. GROUND No. (3) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting but not disposing of the ground of appeal

DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5848/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan: Aaaci1747H Vs. The Acit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5935/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dcit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan : Aaaci1747H Respondent) Appellant) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken Shah, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai Dated 27.06.2017 For

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

allowable expenditure Re-computation of Dividend Distribution Tax ("DDT") liability on dividends paid to non-resident shareholders at beneficial rates as per applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and claim of refund for excess taxes paid Treating incentives under Market Linked Focus Product Scheme as a capital receipt and therefore

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5848/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 801A

Additional Re-computation of Dividend Distribution Tax ("DDT") liability on Ground No.2 | dividends paid to non-resident shareholders at beneficial rates as per applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and claim of refund for excess taxes paid Additional Treating incentives under Market Linked Focus Product Scheme as Ground No.3 a capital

Swarn Ganga Jewellers, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1) Now DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 675/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 68

Acceptance of sales and still holding that cash is from some other source which has remained untaxed, the same amounted to impermissible double taxation ; d. The Ld. AO expected the appellant to produce something which the law or rules did not require the appellant to maintain ; e. The estimation exercise

Oasis Jewels Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 302/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

accepted by the Assessing Officer, the very same amount cannot be again added under Section 68 of the Act as it will tantamount to double taxation. The Ld. AR submitted that all the documentary evidences related to names and address of customers, bill numbers, dates, description of product, weight, rate

Asha Rani Pandya, Indore vs. CPC Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniasha Rani Pandya Dcit/Acit-1(1) 389 1Ad- Scheme No.74C Indore Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aqqpp7081A Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain & Shri Prakash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28 .06.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 91

overseas Income is included in the total income, the assessee is entitle for relief of overseas taxes paid under section 90 as per applicable double taxation avoidance agreement, if any, or for appropriate tax relief under section 91 of the Act in case there are no such agreements in existence ... relevant in the present context. Same is extracted below: " Page 8 of 14 ITANo.176/Ind/2024 Asha Rani Pandya 4. In the case of India, double taxation shall be avoided as follows: (a) the amount of Australian tax paid under the laws of Australia and in accordance with the provisions of this

Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 776/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 776/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, V. Tax, 93, Erode Main Road, Circle -1, Ganapathypalayam, Erode. Erode – 638 153. [Pan: Abrpc-3073-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 69A

Appeal No 336/Jnd/2012 wherein on identical facts of the case it was held that the claim of the assessee that such addition resulted into double taxation of the same income in the same year because on one hand cost of the sales has been taxed (after deducting gross profit from ... customers was already admitted 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. It was also submitted that the assessee was having

Ritu Multitrade Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

sales transaction has already been offered by the assessee in its sales, reported in profit & loss account and the addition made amounts to double taxation. Further, he asserted that Section 68 cannot be applied in respect of realisation of sales proceeds for establishing the identity and credit worthiness ... assessee duly reported in its profit & loss account and offered to tax. Such an addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer tentamounts to double taxation of the same income. Further, Ld. Assessing Officer has resorted to provisions of section 68 for making this addition which is uncalled

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. Commisioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 58, Mumbai

ITA 693/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 250

order passed by learned AO, erred in rejecting the claim of Appellant for the benefit of the non discrimination clause of the India - Korea Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'DTAA') and taxing the income of Appellant at the rate 40 per cent instead of the rate applicable ... income tax return filed by the assessee, it was pointed out that in view of Article 25(1) of the India Korea Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [(1987) 165 ITR Stat 191; the then Indo Page 2 ITA No. 696/Mum/2024 AY 2016-17 Shinhan Bank Korea tax treaty, in short), which

M/S Ceat Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1052/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year :2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Jasmin AmalsadvalaFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt

Section 143(1)Section 41(1)

added the above said amount again. It is the grievance of the assessee that the addition so made by the CPC has resulted in double taxation of the same item of income. 4. Hence the assessee filed appeal before Ld CIT(A) contesting the above said addition ... said amount of Rs.60,19,934/- to taxation in the return of income itself. Hence the addition made by the CPC would result in double taxation of same item of income. 6. The Ld A.R submitted that the “Column 14, Part A-01” in the return of income

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1026/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

For Respondent: “i. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 153Section 250Section 9

Indian entity M/s. Jefferries India Pvt Ltd ("JIPL") as 'fests for technical services/included services which is taxable in India under Article 12 of the double taxation avoidance agreement between India and United States of America (Treaty¹) since, the assessee 'makes available' technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or process ... JIPL on account of reimbursement of expenses but has claimed the same as not liable to tax in India as per the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). It has claimed the said receipts as not taxable in India, since these cannot be characterized as "Fees for Technical/included services

DCIT It 3.1.1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1025/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 9

DCIT It 3.1.1, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1024/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 9

DCIT It 3.1.1, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1023/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024

For Respondent: “i. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 153Section 250Section 9