← 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

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 310/CHANDI/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

same year in 2012 and the same was offered to tax in the shape of receivables and cash. Hence it will amount to double taxation and the same deserves to be deleted. 18. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the findings of the lower authorities which we have already

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 309/CHANDI/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

same year in 2012 and the same was offered to tax in the shape of receivables and cash. Hence it will amount to double taxation and the same deserves to be deleted. 18. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the findings of the lower authorities which we have already

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 308/CHANDI/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

same year in 2012 and the same was offered to tax in the shape of receivables and cash. Hence it will amount to double taxation and the same deserves to be deleted. 18. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the findings of the lower authorities which we have already

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT-Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 307/CHANDI/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

same year in 2012 and the same was offered to tax in the shape of receivables and cash. Hence it will amount to double taxation and the same deserves to be deleted. 18. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the findings of the lower authorities which we have already

Executors of the Will of Late Smt. Gaindibai Barjatya, Mumbai vs. Jurisdictional Officer, Mumbai

ITA 1299/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

declared, distributed, paid as the case may be, by way of dividend and being a tax on income of the company, there is no double taxation of the same income. DTAAS seek to reduce the impact of double taxation which has harmful effects on the international exchange of goods ... services and cross-border movements of capital, technology and persons. Bilateral tax treaties address instances of double taxation by allocating taxing rights to the contracting states. Most existing bilateral tax treaties are concluded on the basis of a model, such as the OECD Model Tax Convention or the United Nations

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl. Tax Circle - 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3365/MUM/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Van Oord Dredging & Marine Contractors Bv 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Kalina, Mumbai-400 098 Pan: Aaach3500M ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400 021 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Jasmin Amalasadvala, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2Section 234A

mark-up and hence, the same being reimbursement of cost, is not taxable as Royalty under the Act as well as under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') between India and the Netherlands. 3. erred in treating the management service fees received by the Appellant as "Royalty" under Article ... India. The case of the assessee before us is that, services provided by the assessee do not constitute Royalty as per India- Netherlands Double taxation avoidance agreement ("DTAA). We find that this Tribunal, in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 (ITA no. 7589/Mum/2012 dated 07/10/2016), pursuant to analyzing

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 194/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India- Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable to tax in India in the hands of GIL. The case of the assessee is that ... interpret the provisions under the Convention between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and for the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income And Capital Gains, "India- Ireland DTAA". Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India- Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable to tax in India in the hands of GIL. The case of the assessee is that ... interpret the provisions under the Convention between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and for the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income And Capital Gains, "India- Ireland DTAA". Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Benagluru

From or relate to the Services

ITA 192/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos.191 To 194/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India- Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable to tax in India in the hands of GIL. The case of the assessee is that

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 191/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India- Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable to tax in India in the hands of GIL. The case of the assessee is that ... interpret the provisions under the Convention between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and for the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income And Capital Gains, "India- Ireland DTAA". Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty

ACIT Circle-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Dart Express Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2505/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Richa SachdevaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 143(3)

therefore, DDT on divided paid to DHL Singapore was payable at the rate of 10% being the rate prescribed in Article 10 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore. Since the 2 Assessee had paid DDT at effective rate of 20.36%. The Assessee was entitled to claim refund ... amount paid in excess of the rate of 10% specified in Article 10 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore. The Assessing Officer rejected the aforesaid claim of refund, whereas the CIT(A) overturned the decision of the Assessing Officer and allowed the claim of refund

Ces Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Ces Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcs4564P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 154Section 37(1)Section 90

that the disallowance of the same by the A.O.(CPC) U/ s 143(1) of the IT Act would lead to double taxation which is against the provisions of law. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering that the LD. CPC, Bangalore ought to have appreciated the fact that ... thus the claim made U/s 90 can never be disallowed. For your kind pursual the appellant hereby submits the relevant clause of double taxation agreement with USA is reproduced here: INDIA US DTAA: '2. (a) Where a resident of India derives income which, in accordance with the provisions of this

Schindler China Elevator Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3355/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh, Schindler China Elevator Vs. The Assistant Company Limited Commissioner Of Income C/O Bansi S. Mehta & Co., Tax, Int. Tax, Circle Merchant Chamber, 3Rd 4(2)(1), Room No. 1708, Floor, 41, New Marin 17Th Floor, Air India Lines, Mumbai – 400020 Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aascs8166L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

that the Appellant and SIPL constitute an AOP 3. In the absence of Permanent Establishment in India, under Article 7 of the India-China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") and in the absence of any business connection as envisaged u/s 9(1)(1) of the Act, the Appellant prays that

The Agriculture Development Co.Op.Credit Society Ltd., Sidhpur vs. The ITO, Patan Ward-1, Unjha

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose purposes

ITA 231/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(4)

lakhs earned from banks to net income so earned and returned by the assessee of Rs.8.83 lakhs, thereby resulting in double taxation. 8. On going through the facts of the instant case, and the original assessment order and original order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), we observe that while holding

The Agriculture Development Co.Op.Credit Society Ltd., Sidhpur vs. The ITO, Patan Ward-4, Unjha

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose purposes

ITA 230/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(4)

lakhs earned from banks to net income so earned and returned by the assessee of Rs.8.83 lakhs, thereby resulting in double taxation. 8. On going through the facts of the instant case, and the original assessment order and original order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), we observe that while holding

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Asaikani Nadar Kamaraj, Rajapalayam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 1197/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1197/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & C.O. No. 54/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 1197/Chny/2023] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Asaikani Nadar Kamaraj, Income Tax, 7/84, Pound Street, Chokkanathaputhur, Central Circle 2, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, Madurai. Tamil Nadu 626 121. [Pan:Aaxpk1318E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkataraman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 31.08.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 01.11.2017 Admitting A Total

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkataraman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145Section 68

that the unexplained Sundry Creditors cannot be brought to tax u/s 68 of the Act and the addition made by the A.O. amounts to double taxation. 6.2.13 In respect of the issue relating to double taxation, the claim of the Appellant is that the unexplained Sundry Creditors were offered ... amount, payment of taxes and filing of Return of Income for the A. Y. 2018- 19 making addition upon the same issue amounts to double taxation. In view of this, the action of the A.O. in bringing the unexplained creditors during the A. Y. 201 7-18 is not correct

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Ms Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, CA
Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

only on the basis of suspicion. Suspicion howsoever strong but cannot partake the character of evidence. The appellant claims that such addition results into double taxation of the same income in the same year. This view has been held by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case ... 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 is also on record that the assessee

Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

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

ITA 3412/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3412/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd., Acit, C/O Nirmal Malpani, Ernst & Vs. Circle-2(2)(1), Young Llp, 3Rd & 6Th Floor, International Taxation, Worldmark 1, Igi Airport E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Hospitality District, Aerocity, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcm1638A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270A

Appellant without appreciating the same is not in the nature of “Royalty” under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) or India - Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’). 3.2 That Impugned Order erred in failing to appreciate that income from cloud services cannot be taxed as “Royalty” in the hands ... present appeal is relating to taxability of receipts from Cloud Services as royalty both under the domestic law as well as under India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty (DTAA). At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ovid Technologies Inc, Gurgoan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2626/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2622 & 2626/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2020-21 बनाम Acit Ovid Technologies Inc., Circle 2(2)(2), Vs. N-143, Ground Floor, International Taxation, Luxotica Today, Room No. 411, 4Th Floor, Sector-51, Gurgaon, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Haryana. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Center, New Delhi. Pan No. Aabco3041P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92

that receipts earned from providing online database access of journals and books cannot be construed as Royalty under Article 12 of the India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 3. The appellant craves to add, amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at any time or before the hearing ... taxation of revenue from online database of text journal and books as royalty income under Article 12 of India US I.T.A.Nos.2622 & 2626/Del/2023 Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Tribunal held as under: “5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an entity incorporated under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ovid Technologies Inc., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2622/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2622 & 2626/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2020-21 बनाम Acit Ovid Technologies Inc., Circle 2(2)(2), Vs. N-143, Ground Floor, International Taxation, Luxotica Today, Room No. 411, 4Th Floor, Sector-51, Gurgaon, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Haryana. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Center, New Delhi. Pan No. Aabco3041P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92

that receipts earned from providing online database access of journals and books cannot be construed as Royalty under Article 12 of the India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 3. The appellant craves to add, amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at any time or before the hearing ... taxation of revenue from online database of text journal and books as royalty income under Article 12 of India US I.T.A.Nos.2622 & 2626/Del/2023 Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Tribunal held as under: “5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an entity incorporated under