“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

Standard Chartered Global Business Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 964/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 964/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Standard Chartered Global The Deputy Commissioner Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.1, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aaecs 9043E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 124/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 The Assistant Standard Chartered Global Commissioner Of Income Vs. Business Services Pvt. Tax, Ltd., Corporate Circle 3(1), No.1, Haddows Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aaecs 9043E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 195Section 40

partake the nature of fees for technical/ Included services (FTS'/ FIS) despite the narrower provisions of Article 12 of the Agreements for Avoidance of Double Taxation (DTAA) entered into by India with the US/ UK and also by alleging that the seconded employees constitute a Service PE for overseas group

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 978/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

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

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 958/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

M/S Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 484/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedappeal No. Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

ITA/IT(TP)A Nos. 1008, 1092, 1166, 484, 958, 1045, 1046 & 978/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH

M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax, Circle - 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1166/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1092/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1046/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

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

ITA 1045/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedappeal No. Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

Gartner Ireland Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allo

ITA 2460/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gartner Ireland Ltd., Dcit-2(3)(2), 3Rd Floor, Two Park Place, 17Th Floor, 1711, Air India Hatch Street, Dublin 2, Vs. Building, Nariman Point, Ireland D02 Np94. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaccg 2919 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Farooq Irani Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Ambastha, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Ambastha, Sr. DR

Section 234DSection 9(1)(vi)

Income- tax Act, 1961 and under Article 12 of India tax Act, 1961 and under Article 12 of India - Ireland Double Taxation Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Avoidance Agreement. 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and 1.2 On the facts ... purpose in terms of Ireland and is a resident of Ireland for tax purpose in terms of Gartner Ireland Ltd. 3 Article 4 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered Article 4 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered Article 4 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered into between

Chinmay Impex Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1111/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: The Tribunal. After Contacting The Present Chartered Accountant, The Chinmay Impex Vs. Ito Asst.Year 2015-16 2 Assessee Company Filed The Appeal With A Delay Of 35 Days & Requested To Condone The Same.

Section 143Section 148Section 151Section 68

profit earned in its Audit Books of accounts and paid the tax thereon. Therefore the impugned addition made by the AO amounts to a double taxation, which is contravention of the settled provision of law and the addition is liable to be deleted. 7. Per contra, the Ld.Sr-DR appearing ... paid tax thereon. There is considerable force in the arguments making addition u/s.68 again in the hands of the assessee will amount to double taxation. Since the assessee could not participate in the appellate proceedings and produced the relevant details, which has resulted in ex-parte order. Therefore

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Karur vs. Sivakarthikeyan Transports, Karur

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 578/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.578/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Sivakarithikeyan Transport, Ward-1, 23, Pasupathipuram, Karur. Karur 639 001. [Pan: Ablfs 8576P]

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S.Easwar, IRS, JCTI

Section 144Section 147Section 148

filed. Therefore making addition of Rs.17,24,997/- on account of net profit of 8% of receipts of Rs.2, 15,62,457/- would cause double taxation of the same income; once in the status of AOP & once in the status of firm. In view of the facts & remand report submitted

Indian Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 158/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.155, 156, 157 & 158/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A ./For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 90Section 90(3)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and relief shall be granted in accordance with the method for elimination or avoidance of double taxation provided in such agreement". A coordinate bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Essar Oil Ltd (supra) also proceeded to hold that this notification

Indian Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 157/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A ./For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 90Section 90(3)

Indian Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 156/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A ./For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 90Section 90(3)

Indian Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 155/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A ./For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 90Section 90(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries-Vst Diesel Engines Private Limited, Mysuru

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

ITA 505/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ankith, CA

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

this juncture it is worthwhile here to mention that Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) is meant for resolving the disputes usually arising on account of double taxation or taxation that violates the trade agreement between the two countries. 12. Further the Revised Return filed on 25/05/2017 for the Asst. year

Balasubramanyan Ashok, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Vaidehi .G, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Shamala .D.D, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 6Section 90

revised return as per the provisions of the Section 90 of the Act read with Article 25(2)(a) of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, without providing any cogent reasons against the settled judicial principles and without considering the documentary evidences. The appellant craves leave to add, amend ... Form 67 was filed along with the revised return. The assessee claimed a Foreign Tax Credit (FTC), under Article 23 of India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). It is submitted that, the FTC was claimed on doubly taxed income for the assessment years under consideration, computed under Section

DCIT Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai, Nariman Point Mumbai vs. Gnp Realty LLP, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 3105/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 250

Commissioner as observed in impugned order, therefore the 13 M/s. GNP Realty LLP addition under challenge, if sustained, will amount to double taxation, which is not permissible at all. Even considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in totality and the specific findings of the Ld. Commissioner

Vaibhav Singhal, Bangalore vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(5), Saharanpur

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

ITA 3585/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekvaibhav Singhal, Vs. Ito, Ward 3(3)(5), 102, Golden Paradise, Saharanpur. 2Nd Cross Street, Hennur Bande Bus Stop, Bangalore – 560 043 (Karnataka). (Pan : Dawps9391K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.P. Chitambram, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2024 Date Of Order : 29.05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. The Appellants Objects To The Order Dated 12 October 2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) Issued By The Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) For The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Grounds: 2. Denial Or Claim Of Foreign Tax Credit U/S 90 Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chitambram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 90

failed to understand that the assessee is entitled to claim foreign tax credit as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) between India and the host jurisdiction even if a Form 67 is filed along with revised return of income. 2.4 The learned CIT (A) has failed to understand

Junaid Ali, Lucknow vs. ITO-6(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 2/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year 2017-18 Junaid Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer 6(2), Village Ghaila, Iim Road, Lucknow-New. Near Career Medical College, Lucknow-226020 Pan –Aiwpa 3483D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

that provisions of section 69A cannot be applied in respect of income from a source which has already been taxed which would amount to double taxation i.e addition made above mentioned in point no. 6. 9- That the appellant assessee humbly prays to your honour that addition made in gross