“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

Fashion Zone, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ward III(2), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)Section 68

that where sales have been declared by the assessee than making addition of the same under section 68/69 of the Act will amount to double taxation. It was submitted that in the instant case, the sales have been accepted as per the trading account filed by the assessee and there ... where the cash sales duly offered to tax have been accepted, bringing the realization of sale proceeds in cash to tax will amount to double taxation and the same is clearly unsustainable in law and cannot be upheld. In view of the same, we find the explanation of the assessee

DCIT Central Circle - 6(1), Mumbai vs. Gnp Consultancy and Solutions Private Limited, Thane

ITA 3110/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi , AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr . Kishor Dhule, CIT DR

Section 143Section 69

view, once income is already offered to tax by various entities of the GNP group, taxing the same again would lead to double taxation and such double taxation is not permitted under the act. ……… 12.7 Thus it emerges that once the income is already offered to tax, the same cannot

Gnp Consultancy and Solutions Pvt Ltd, Nariman Point vs. DCIT Circle-6(1), Mumbai, Nariman Point

ITA 2547/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Gnp Consultancy & Dcit Solutions Private Limited Central Circle-6(1) Room No.1905, 19 Th Floor, Plot No.91, Shop No.1 Channel Classic Chs Sector Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Point 4 Kopar Khairne, Thane Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aadcg3716B Gnp Consultancy & Dcit Solutions Private Limited Central Circle-6(1) Plot No.91, Shop No.1 Room No.1905, 19 Th Floor, Channel Classic Chs Sector Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Point 4 Kopar Khairne, Thane Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 709 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR

Section 143Section 69

DCIT, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad vs. Tpsc(India) Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 225/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

provision of services of technical or other personnel, would as such constitute fee for included services under Article 12(4) of the India Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 15. Learned AR submits that the copy of the deputation agreement is now available with them and they are ready to furnish

Jt. CIT (OSD) - 2 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1349/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 1093/मुं/2019 (नि.व. 2012-13)

Supreme Court in Jain Brothers vs Union of India, [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC): “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 same 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 anyone thereafter to invoke the general principles that subject cannot be taxed twice over

Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-58, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1093/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1093/मुं/2019(िन.व. 2012-13) Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaact-4060-A बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Jcit, Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.1349/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Jt.Cit (Osd)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Stree, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ....."ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaact-4060-A अपीलाथ""ारा/Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji & Ms. Aastha Shah, Advocates. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/03/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji and Ms. Aastha Shah, AdvocatesFor Respondent: S/Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR and Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Sr.AR

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Awas Developers, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 368/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 184Section 40ASection 68

these amounts which have ultimately been translated as sales receipts and which have been offered to tax as unexplained cash credits would tantamount to double taxation of the same amounts which would not be legally justifiable proposition. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant vide letter dated

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 885/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

received payments from various customers in India and claimed that certain receipts are not taxable in India on account of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The various receipts of the assessee as disclosed in Form 3CEB and that reflected in Form 26AS are tabulated as under:- Payer Total ... holding that the Appellant cannot be treated as tax resident of UK and is not entitled to any benefits under the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA"). Re: Offshore supply receipts of Rs.599.49.48.889 from PGCIL 4. That the DRP/assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 884/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2240/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2239/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Ge Hydro France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2086/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

returned income, without appreciating that the same was already offered for tax by the Appellant in the return of income, thereby, resulting in double taxation. 12. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making addition to the returned income in respect of deduction of expenses ... facts and in law in making the aforesaid addition of Rs.96,45,456 to the returned income, not appreciating that the same resulted in double taxation. Re: Other grounds relating to computation of tax demand & penalty proceedings 16. Without prejudice, that the assessing officer erred in erroneously computing total receipts

Ge Hydro France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2085/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

Cadence Design Systems (India) Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle 4(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1489/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uscadence Design System (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(2), Plot Nos. 57A, B & C, Noida Delhi Special Economic Zone, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1138Q Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv Shri Vibhu Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2024

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 194Section 234BSection 250Section 274Section 40

view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC- AO/NFAC has erred in not extending the benefit of applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA, & India and Mauritius ("DTAA") qua the rate of tax on payment of dividend to the shareholders. 3.2 That ... Gardenia MJM II, Mauritius is to be taxed at the rate of 15% as per the provisions of Article 10 of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') and India- Mauritius DTAA, respectively, and not at the rate of 20.36% as charged in terms of section

ACIT Circle- 3(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Siemens International Trading Ltd., Shanghai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 8429/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

legal position that income from offshore supply received by the Appellant is not taxable in India under the provisions of the Act read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India and China ("Tax Treaty"). 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the credit ... other deductions against such income. The assessee may also be not chargeable to tax on the income because of the overriding provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and/or because of the provision for exemption of such income, whether wholly or partly, under some provisions of the Income

Siemens International Trading Ltd., Shanghai vs. ITO, Ward- 3(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 7275/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2959/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt a/wFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

Profit and Loss account instead of 3% as per the agreement. The assessee further submitted that under the Act as well as the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) entered with the aforesaid countries, the assessee is liable to pay tax only on the amount of Royalty received

Asian Paints Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 1673/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt a/wFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

Rishit Pravinbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1029/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154

Shreeji Construction, twice by not allowing it from business income when it was shown separately as share income from partnership firm, which tantamounts to double taxation”. Though the Ld. CIT(A) after affording three opportunities to the assessee passed exparte order, however failed to verify this apparent mistake on record ... well as any other income namely commission, bonus and interest income from Firm of Rs.5,98,868/- offered by the assessee amounts to double taxation, which is not permissible in law. Both the Lower Authorities failed to consider the above submissions of the assessee which is liable

Elizebeth Simaputhran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), International Taxation, Chennai

In the result, ITA No.906/Chny/2023 stand allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 907/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Dasआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.906/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.907/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mrs. Elizabeth Sima Puthran Ito Prop. M/S. Puthran & Associates Ward-(1) बनाम No.B3, 5/7, Kesavan Orchid, International Taxation, / Vs. North Mada Street, Sri Nagar Colony, Chennai. Saidapet , Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepe-0124-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)- Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

field of IPR, trademarks etc. The Ld. AR submitted that these services would fall under specific provisions of ‘Independent professional services’ as per Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with respective countries. The Ld. AR submitted that though elaborate arguments, in this regard, were made before first appellate authority, the same