← 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

Royal Western India Turf Club Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Ward 2(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 7249/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sanat KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 191Section 194BSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

stake money in their respective returns. Not allowing the benefit of the same and the treatment done by the Assessing Officer has resulted in double taxation on the same income. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer as well ... taxes on the said income, the assessee-deductor cannot be compelled to pay TDS again on the same income because it would lead to double taxation on the same income. Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola (supra

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7070/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

purchases of INR.2,94,55,536/- made from the said parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that addition of INR.5,52,285/- resulted in double taxation of same income in absence of one to one correlation between the inflated purchases made from the specified parties/vendors and cash received back from

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7069/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

purchases of INR.2,94,55,536/- made from the said parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that addition of INR.5,52,285/- resulted in double taxation of same income in absence of one to one correlation between the inflated purchases made from the specified parties/vendors and cash received back from

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7068/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

purchases of INR.2,94,55,536/- made from the said parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that addition of INR.5,52,285/- resulted in double taxation of same income in absence of one to one correlation between the inflated purchases made from the specified parties/vendors and cash received back from

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7067/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

purchases of INR.2,94,55,536/- made from the said parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that addition of INR.5,52,285/- resulted in double taxation of same income in absence of one to one correlation between the inflated purchases made from the specified parties/vendors and cash received back from

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7066/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

purchases of INR.2,94,55,536/- made from the said parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that addition of INR.5,52,285/- resulted in double taxation of same income in absence of one to one correlation between the inflated purchases made from the specified parties/vendors and cash received back from

DCIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7065/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

purchases of INR.2,94,55,536/- made from the said parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that addition of INR.5,52,285/- resulted in double taxation of same income in absence of one to one correlation between the inflated purchases made from the specified parties/vendors and cash received back from

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7064/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

purchases of INR.2,94,55,536/- made from the said parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that addition of INR.5,52,285/- resulted in double taxation of same income in absence of one to one correlation between the inflated purchases made from the specified parties/vendors and cash received back from

Rama Sivaraman, Mumbai vs. AO Ward 3(2), Thane

ITA 6947/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev N. LFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 147

into consideration. It was contended that taxation of same capital gains income in the hands of the Assessee and her husband would amount to double taxation. However, the aforesaid submission did not find favour with the Assessment Year 2013-2014 Learned CIT(A) as the appeal preferred by the Assessee

Rama Sivaraman, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 6946/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev N. LFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 147

into consideration. It was contended that taxation of same capital gains income in the hands of the Assessee and her husband would amount to double taxation. However, the aforesaid submission did not find favour with the Assessment Year 2013-2014 Learned CIT(A) as the appeal preferred by the Assessee

Income Tax Officer22(1)(1), Mumbai vs. All India Transport Agency, Mumbai

ITA 6612/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 148

income since the relevant income was also assessed in the hand of M/s AITA Carriers Pvt. Ltd.(ACPL) and therefore, it would amount to double taxation of the same income in the hands of different entities. The AO assessed the total income at Rs.2,56,23,305/- consisting of Business

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 1 1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Khyati Chemicals Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby allowed

ITA 1856/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 198Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

collection in the hands of Government of India. Again, disallowance of Rs.2,40,00,000/- from the account of the company will tantamount double taxation. Hence, addition made on account of disallowance of salary expense is deleted and Ground No. 6 to 17 raised by appellant are allowed.” 3.1. Regarding

Rajat Rajendraprasad Rastogi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (Intl. Taxn.), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1783/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

assessee received an intimation order u/s. 143(1) from the Department dated 23-03-2010 in which the Double Taxation Relief u/s. 90/91 was not allowed by the CPC and the revenue raised demand amounting to Rs. 14,32,900/-. Later on, the assessee filed Form

South Asian Regional Apex Fund, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -19(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 670/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(3)Section 161Section 161(1)Section 234B

short-term capital gains of INR 1,01,36,885 were already taxed in the hands of beneficiaries, resulting in double taxation, as beneficiaries’ shares were determinate. The Learned CIT(A) erred in treating interest income of INR 4,142 and short- term capital gains ... been offered and assessed in the hands of beneficiaries, and therefore taxing the same again in the hands of the trust would result in double taxation. Reliance was also placed on the decision in ITO v. India Innovation Fund (ITA No. 1675/Mum/2018). 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) supported

South Asian Regional Apex Fund, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -23(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 669/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(3)Section 161Section 161(1)Section 234B

short-term capital gains of INR 1,01,36,885 were already taxed in the hands of beneficiaries, resulting in double taxation, as beneficiaries’ shares were determinate. The Learned CIT(A) erred in treating interest income of INR 4,142 and short- term capital gains ... been offered and assessed in the hands of beneficiaries, and therefore taxing the same again in the hands of the trust would result in double taxation. Reliance was also placed on the decision in ITO v. India Innovation Fund (ITA No. 1675/Mum/2018). 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) supported

M.S. Builders, Moradabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Moradabad

ITA 616/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250

ITA No.616/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI ITA No.616/Del/2025 BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

Satish Kumar Mailik, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 52(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4307/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalsatish Kumar Malik, Income Tax Officer, 2/31, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Ward-52(3), New Delhi-110002. Vs. Delhi. Pan-Adrpm7097D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.M. Mehta, Ca & Shri J.P. Chawla, Ca Department By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.05.2025 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-18/10299/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Goods. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 02.11.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.26,19,530/- & The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Complete Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason “Abnormal Increase In Cash Deposit During The Demonetization”. Thereafter, Notice U/S 143(2) Satish Kumar Malik Vs. Ito Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time, In Response To Which Assessee Filed Written Submissions. After Considering The Submissions Filed By The Assessee The Ao Was Of The Opinion That Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.44,44,750/- In Bank During Demonetization Period In Sbn Source Of Which Was Not Explained And, Therefore, Made The Addition Of The Said Cash As Unexplained Credits U/S 68 Of The Act & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act & Charge Tax At The Higher Rate.

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

115BBE, despite partly allowing relief by reducing the addition to the extent of gross profit already taxed, thereby effectively resulting in unjust and impermissible double taxation. The alleged cash deposits were part of regular business transactions, duly recorded in the books of accounts and supported by documentary evidence. The sustained

Noida Towers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

ITA 4199/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Zia Rathi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-44(3), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1881/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalmrs. Zia Rathi, Income Tax Officer, 274, Dda Flats, Sector-1A, Ward-44(3), Dwarka Nasirpur, Vs. Delhi. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Bsvpr9218M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 27.02.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 15/11146/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Sole Proprietor Of M/S Veezee Traders Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Pvc Coated Imported Fabric. The Zia Rathi Vs. Ito

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

dated 14.05.2018. PB 440-470 are the submission before Ld. CIT(A) highlighting the above mentioned points and submitting that addition has resulting into double taxation. Adverse observations of Ld. AO meets as under: Adverse observations of Ld. AO meets as under:- 1. Ld. AO has mentioned in para ... Vishal Exports Overseas Limited (Gujarat High Court) Tax Appeal No. 2471 of 2009 Thus, impugned additions will only result in double taxation which is not permissible in the eyes of law. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions for cash deposit during the demonetization period and also

Al Hamd Agro Food Products Pvt Ltd, Aligarh vs. Dc/ACIT, Aligarh

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 63/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 40

they find that the provision of a DTAA treaty is not in conformity with the Act. 5 | P a g e -Thus, where a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement provided for a particular mode of computation of income, the same should be followed, irrespective of the provision of the Income ... Further in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra), after taking note of the decisions of various high courts on the purpose of Double Taxation Avoidance Conventions qua Section 90 of the Act, the Supreme court observed as under: "A survey of the aforesaid cases makes it clear that