← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Sitaram Jewellers, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 915/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri.T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 69C

unaccounted purchases and brought the profit element thereof to tax as business income, treating the very same transactions again as unexplained expenditure results in double taxation of the same income, which is impermissible in law. 50. Further, section 69C of the Act can be invoked only when the Assessing Officer ... taxation of the same transaction again is in accordance with law, as the Revenue failed to establish unexplained expenditure or justify double taxation. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed, and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 54. In the result, both the appeals

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Sitaram Jewellers, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 913/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri.T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 69C

unaccounted purchases and brought the profit element thereof to tax as business income, treating the very same transactions again as unexplained expenditure results in double taxation of the same income, which is impermissible in law. 50. Further, section 69C of the Act can be invoked only when the Assessing Officer ... taxation of the same transaction again is in accordance with law, as the Revenue failed to establish unexplained expenditure or justify double taxation. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed, and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 54. In the result, both the appeals

Orbit Resorts Limited, Chandigarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle TDS, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4880/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

counsel for the assessee that the receipts disclosed by the recipients in their ITR would lead to double taxation of the same amount both in the hands of the assessee and of the recipient. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Gurpreet Singh Dhillon, India vs. DCIT, Circle Int Tax 1(2)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3600/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Gurpreet Singh Dhillon, Dcit, Kothi No. 2, Dear Baba Circle Int. Tax 1(2)(2), Jaimal Singh, Beas, Vs Civic Centre, Minto Road, Amritsar, New Delhi-110002. Punjab-143204 Pan- Afqpd5302R Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 270A

excess rent of Rs. 7,46,925/- was declared till A.Y. 2021-22 and, therefore, again taxing the said amount would lead to impressible double taxation. In this regard, the Ld. AR also filed a reconciliation statement to support the claim of the assessee. The relevant submissions of the assessee ... already declared excess rent of Rs. 7,46,925/-. Thus, sustaining the impugned addition once again in AY 2022-23 leads to impermissible double taxation. 5. The reason being that the ITRs were filed by different consultants and staff. Moreover, during the COVID-19 period and lockdown, the newly appointed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Ravi Bharadwaj, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2232/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143

Bank N.V. has been provided by BVI. 6. Thereafter, information was received from the Competent Authority of Singapore under “Exchange of Information” Article of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India & Singapore. It was informed that company, Lazare International Group Limited had 16 different bank accounts with Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Ravi Bharadwaj, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2231/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143

Bank N.V. has been provided by BVI. 6. Thereafter, information was received from the Competent Authority of Singapore under “Exchange of Information” Article of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India & Singapore. It was informed that company, Lazare International Group Limited had 16 different bank accounts with Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Ravi Bharadwaj, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2230/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143

Bank N.V. has been provided by BVI. 6. Thereafter, information was received from the Competent Authority of Singapore under “Exchange of Information” Article of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India & Singapore. It was informed that company, Lazare International Group Limited had 16 different bank accounts with Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore

Radhika Jewellers, Rajkot vs. Dy.CIT 2 (1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

deleted. There should not be two additions for the same issue, therefore, if the protective addition is not deleted, then it amounts to double taxation on the same issue, which is not permitted by the law. Since the substantive additions were already made in the hands of the respective partners ... deleted, as there should not be two additions, in the hands of two different persons, for the same issue, as it amounts to double taxation, hence, protective additions, so made by the assessing officer, in the hands of the assessee firm, needs to be deleted. 15. When

Patliputra Distributors Private Limited, Patna vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-2, Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 319/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

profit is also embedded on this turnover which is included in the turnover of income of the assessee it clearly shown that it double taxation to the assessee which is not permitted in the income tax provision. The assessee does not have any other sources of income except the trading

Skyline Developers, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward4(50, Pune

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

ITA 709/PUN/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

where none has accrued, especially when the project had not even commenced substantial activities by the end of the financial year. 4. Risk of Double Taxation: The total actual turnover from the project, being Rs.25,78,43,800/-, has already been offered by Skyline and accepted by the Revenue ... erroneously recorded turnover of Rs.11,33,00,800/- in AY 2006-07 is also considered, it will indisputably lead to double taxation of the same project income. 5. Conclusion and Prayer In light of the foregoing facts: 11 Skyline Developers The income shown in AY 2006-07 was based

Bmw Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2587/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Ms. Archana Gupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

India and Others [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC), it has been held as under: — "6 It is not disputed that there can be double taxation if the legislature has distinctly enacted it. It is only when there are general words of taxation and they have to be interpreted, they cannot ... interpreted as to tax the subject twice over to the same tax..... If any double taxation is involved, the Legislature itself has, in express words, sanctioned it. It is not open to any one thereafter to invoke the general principles that the subject cannot be taxed twice over

Bmw Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2586/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Ms. Archana Gupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

India and Others [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC), it has been held as under: — "6 It is not disputed that there can be double taxation if the legislature has distinctly enacted it. It is only when there are general words of taxation and they have to be interpreted, they cannot ... interpreted as to tax the subject twice over to the same tax..... If any double taxation is involved, the Legislature itself has, in express words, sanctioned it. It is not open to any one thereafter to invoke the general principles that the subject cannot be taxed twice over

Bmw Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2585/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Ms. Archana Gupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

India and Others [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC), it has been held as under: — "6 It is not disputed that there can be double taxation if the legislature has distinctly enacted it. It is only when there are general words of taxation and they have to be interpreted, they cannot ... interpreted as to tax the subject twice over to the same tax..... If any double taxation is involved, the Legislature itself has, in express words, sanctioned it. It is not open to any one thereafter to invoke the general principles that the subject cannot be taxed twice over

M/S Coal India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata

ITA 1407/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 1Section 115JSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Life Line Auto Finance, Karur

ITA 1630/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1630/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2, Trichy. Vs. Life Line Auto Finance, 306-B1, First Floor, Bharathi Nagar, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Karur - 639 002. [Pan:Aaefl-7071-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.03.2015 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”] U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year 2013–14. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 101Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 292C(1)Section 34Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Snn Spiritua Developer, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1224/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 250

revenue brought to tax by the AO during the year under consideration stands offered to tax in the subsequent assessment year, resulting in double taxation of the same income. 15.8 On examination of the materials available on record, it is noticed that the revenue considered ... income twice in the hands of the same assessee is not permissible in law, unless specifically authorized by statute. The Act does not contemplate double taxation merely on account of difference in the year of recognition. ITA Nos.1223 - 1224/Bang/2025 Page 11 of 12 15.9 In the facts of the present

Snn Spiritua Developer, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1223/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 250

revenue brought to tax by the AO during the year under consideration stands offered to tax in the subsequent assessment year, resulting in double taxation of the same income. 15.8 On examination of the materials available on record, it is noticed that the revenue considered ... income twice in the hands of the same assessee is not permissible in law, unless specifically authorized by statute. The Act does not contemplate double taxation merely on account of difference in the year of recognition. ITA Nos.1223 - 1224/Bang/2025 Page 11 of 12 15.9 In the facts of the present

Shiwaji Pd. Jaiswal, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Guwahati

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

ITA 47/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeal of 1862 days delay which is as under: "Dear Sir, Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 against the Assessment Order issued U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43B

Audit Report, as enclosed with the instant appeal would show that the disallowance made to the total income of the appellant has resulted in double taxation in the hands of the appellant, and is therefore, liable to be deleted. That this appeal ought to have been filed on or before ... revenue, if it is not allowed the mistake committed by the tax auditor for wrong reporting was not decide correctly then it will be double taxation to the assessee which is prohibited in the income tax law. Therefore, the justification should be rendered in favour of the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Sri Muthukumaran Educational Trust, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1263/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1263/Chny/2025 & C.O.No.64/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 1263/Chny/2025) िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Sri Muthukumaran Educational Trust, Central Circle -2 (1), Vs. 641/61, Ramasamy Salai, Chennai. K. K. Nagar, Chennai – 600 078. [Pan: Aabts-6980-L] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent/ Cross Objector ) Assessee By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. Department By : Mr. Bipin C.N., C.I.T. & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N., C.I.T. &
Section 115BSection 143(3)

furnished. Once donations are directly assessed on receipt basis, a further addition on account of bank deposits of the same amount clearly amounts to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. 19. Coming to Sri Muthukumaran Institute of Technology, Mangadu Public School, Sri Muthukumaran Arts & Science College, Thiru Seven Hills ... further attempt to treat the cash deposits of Rs.27,18,43,000/- in the bank accounts as separate anonymous donations would clearly amount to double taxation of the same income, which is impermissible in law. 34. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Sri Muthukumaran Educational Trust, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1262/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1262/Chny/2025 & C.O.No.63/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 1262/Chny/2025) िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Sri Muthukumaran Educational Trust, Central Circle -2 (1), Vs. 641/61, Ramasamy Salai, Chennai. K. K. Nagar, Chennai – 600 078. [Pan: Aabts-6980-L] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent/ Cross Objector ) Assessee By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. Department By : Mr. Bipin C.N., C.I.T. & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N., C.I.T. &
Section 12ASection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र