← 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

Hitesh Ramnikalal Metha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 65/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.65/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Hitesh Ramniklal Mehta बिधम/ Ito-19(1)(5) 2, Keshav Niwas, 20 Matru Mandir, Room No. Vs. Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai- 215, Tardeo Mumbai- 400026. 400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaupm8724H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hitesh Mehta (Assessee In Person) Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 11.11.2022 For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Disallowing Provision Of Rs.13,63,255/- Viz, Commission Payable On Sale Of Rs.3,43,20,981/- (Shown As Outstanding Commission) Which Has Been Added In This Year; & In The Alterative, Since The Deduction Claimed Of Rs.13,63,255/- Didn’T Materialize, Assessee Has Written Off The Same, The Ibid Commission Was Offered To Tax In The Year Ay. 2015-16 As Income In P & L Account, So Pleads Deletion Of Addition. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Importing Scrap Metal From Foreign Country (Usa Etc.) & Selling The Same In India. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Claimed Expenditure

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Mehta (Assessee in person)For Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta

pleaded to be allowed, since the AO has not questioned the genuinety of the commission payable and will tantamount to double taxation. Therefore, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter restored back to the file of the 5 A.Y. 2013-14 Hitesh Ramniklal