← 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

Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1789/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT (DR)

accepted as genuine by other wings of the Revenue. Denying the ALP in income-tax proceedings without disproving these evidences amounts to inconsistency and double taxation. 45.4 Judicial precedents also support the assessee’s case. The ITAT in Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 9482/Del/2010) and Sulzer Tech India

Rakesh Kumar, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Barabanki

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 438/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer Naka Paisar Ward 5(5) Deen Dayal Nagar Barabanki Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Awkpk2247F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.11,40,000/- During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account No.752530110000014 Maintained With Bank Of India, Subeha Bazar, Haidergarh. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account. Since There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 68

made by the AO estimating the profit @8% on the total receipts of Rs.49,28,606/- which is inclusive of cash deposits, resulting into double taxation, besides the fact the provisions u/s145(3) are not applicable. 08. Because the CIT(A) was not justified in passing the order

Parvindar Indar Singh, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1002/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

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

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

therefore, if confirmed in the year under consideration, the same needs to be reduced from another assessment year else the same would result into double taxation that is not permissible. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts of the case

Parvindar Indar Singh, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1001/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

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

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

therefore, if confirmed in the year under consideration, the same needs to be reduced from another assessment year else the same would result into double taxation that is not permissible. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts of the case

Sanghi Textiles Private Limited, Hyderbad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1311/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 37(1)

that the AO could not legally and logically make separate disallowances or additions based on the same rejected books, as such action leads to double taxation and is contrary to the settled principles of law. 7. The CIT(A) erred in fairly considering the fact and legal position that ... reported in Form 26AS. The appellant argues that the receipts were already reflected in the books and audited financials, and the addition amounts to double taxation. However, during the assessment proceedings, the appellant failed to furnish verifiable evidence regarding the specific receipts or correlate Form 26AS figures with its books

Pandian Hari, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 11(40, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2598/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2598/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Pandian Hari, The Income Tax Officer, 75/151 I Om Sri Sairam Plaza, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 11(4), Thambuchetty Street, Chennai Parrys, Chennai – 600 001. Pan: Acfph 7870Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr.S. Sankar Ganesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

For Appellant: Dr.S. Sankar Ganesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

accepted, no separate addition under section 68 can be made in respect of entries appearing therein and that the impugned addition results in double taxation since the same receipts were already included in turnover and assessed as business income. It was further submitted that the Ld.FAA passed the impugned order ... Industries Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) and Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) to submit that sustaining the addition under section 68 amounts to impermissible double taxation. The Ld.AR further submitted that since the FAA has not considered the submissions of the assessee/additional evidences and the remand report

Balakrishnan Ramanathan, Gobichettipalayam vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2437/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148

return of income filed by the appellant in the capacity of the HUF, the consequential addition made in the appellant herein would tantamount to double taxation, there by vitiating the decision to confirm the addition made in the re-assessment order. 9. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that

Anil Kumar Gang, Jodhpur vs. ITO 3(1) Jodhpur, Jodhpur

ITA 5313/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth
Section 143(1)Section 154

assessee would be liable to pay tax once again even though the tax was deducted at source. Thus, it would be a case of double taxation which is not permissible in law. To avoid such anomaly, section 205 has been enacted, to the effect that, once the tax is deducted

The Uk Trade Desk Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Int.Tax)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, various sub grounds of ground no

ITA 2038/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) The Uk Trade Desk Ltd. Acit (International Taxation-4(3)(1), 10Th Floor, 1 Bartholomew Close, Vs Mumbai, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, London, United Kingdom. [Pan No. Aahct6320Q] Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 254(1)Section 9(1)(i)

Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("IT Rules") and, further erred in not following the provisions of Article 7 of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation ("DTAA") between India and the UK, providing for the application of transfer pricing principles for determining such profit attribution, by considering ... business is carried out in India. The assessee has also declared its permanent The UK Trade Desk Ltd. establishment under Article 5(4) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and UK. The assessee entered into Master Service Agreement and Marketing Service Agreement. The assessing officer extracted certain clause

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Himanshu Goel, Mayur Vihar Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5232/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

case, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.68,41,000/- on the ground that the addition would amount to double taxation that these cash deposit were from genuine sales recorded in the books of accounts whereas the AO in the assessment order had clearly brought ... Learned Departmental Representative submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.68,41,000/- on the ground that it would amount to double taxation that the cash deposits were from the genuine sales recorded in books of accounts whereas Ld. AO had brought out the facts that

DCIT, Delhi vs. Jmk Jewels Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 4282/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

into account in the return of income and due taxes thereon have been paid. It goes without any doubt that this has resulted in double taxation of the sale proceeds which have already been offered to tax xii. The amount of sales made has been appropriately offered ... cannot be applied in respect of the sales credited to the profit and loss account and this has resulted into double taxation of the sale proceeds which have already been offered to tax. No discrepancies have been pointed out in the books of the assessee. Also, the stock register were

Jmk Jewels Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 3609/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

into account in the return of income and due taxes thereon have been paid. It goes without any doubt that this has resulted in double taxation of the sale proceeds which have already been offered to tax xii. The amount of sales made has been appropriately offered ... cannot be applied in respect of the sales credited to the profit and loss account and this has resulted into double taxation of the sale proceeds which have already been offered to tax. No discrepancies have been pointed out in the books of the assessee. Also, the stock register were

Intertek India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 2904/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143

assessee by not adhering to the lesser rate of tax on dividend provided in accordance with Article 11 of India- United Kingdom (UK) Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 6.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The short issue in dispute is assessee company

Intertek India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 2903/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143

assessee by not adhering to the lesser rate of tax on dividend provided in accordance with Article 11 of India- United Kingdom (UK) Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 6.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The short issue in dispute is assessee company

Saic Motor Corporation Ltd, China vs. DCIT, International Tax, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1191/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Saic Motor Corporation Assistant Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon, Room No.509, Building No.1, Vs Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Tower No.563, Songtao Road, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Pilot Free Trade Zone, Sanghai, Haryana-122001 China, Pan-Abfcs0870H Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Kunal Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2026 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153(1)

assembly project in India in connection to which the appellant had performed supervisory activities, as provided in Article 5(3)(a) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and China. 6.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer/DRP erred ... must have at its disposal certain premises or a part thereof, from which its business is carried on. Phillip Baker in his Commentary on Double Taxation Conventions and International Tax Law (3rd edition) has also stated that the nature of the fixed place of business is very much that

Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv, Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2) Int. Tax., New Delhi

ITA 381/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Royalty chargeable to tax as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and as per Article 12 of India Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) or not. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Assessee

Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv, Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7534/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Royalty chargeable to tax as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and as per Article 12 of India Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) or not. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Assessee

Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 410/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Royalty chargeable to tax as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and as per Article 12 of India Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) or not. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Assessee

Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5732/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

2 ITA No 5732/Del/2011 (AY 2008-09) ITA Nos.4547 & 4511/Del/2017 (AY 2009-10) अपीलार्थी द्वारा / Appellant by प्रतिवादीद्वारा /Respondent by

M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd., Saraikela vs. Deputy Commissione of Income Tax, Circele-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/RAN/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2017 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019–20 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹62,64,116. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Relevant Previous Year, A Survey Operation Under Section 133A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 16.02.2019. Subsequently, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished Various Details & Documents As Called For. The Same Were Examined & Discussed By The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During

Section 10(23)Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 40Section 69Section 69C

alleged short cash of ₹4,08,000 ought to be telescoped against the excess stock, and making a separate addition would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. Accordingly, it was prayed that both the additions relating to excess stock and short cash deserve to be deleted, especially ... assessee that the same stands covered by the excess stock and the additional income already offered. Separate addition of short cash would result in double taxation, which is not permissible. Accordingly, this addition is also directed to be deleted. I.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 M/s Anjeneya Ispat Ltd 6.2 Coming to the disallowance