“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

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

that the Respondent has a source of income in India and hence, it has satisfied one of the conditions of Article 24 of the double taxation avoidance agreement executed between India and Singapore ('India- Singapore tax treaty"). The Respondent respectfully submits that the above finding is erroneous and should ... Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore for the relevant assessment year(s), claimed benefit of the provisions of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation and Prevention of Fiscal Evasion between India and Singapore (for Short „DTAA‟) for the Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2003-04. 2.3 Eligibility

M/S. S vs. Constructions, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 271/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G. Sathyanarayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(2)

indicating that the assessee is entitled to a particular extent of relief, but if it is with reference to relevant articles of the double taxation avoidance agreements and if it is not either a proper computation or not fully in consonance with the same and if it has resulted ... detrimental to the interest of the assessee, as it was always open to the assessee to justify the claim in terms of the double taxation avoidance agreements. In a situation of this nature, we are also of the opinion that it was not a case which warranted interference

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Allsec Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 421/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) –Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 195(1)Section 40

nature of marketing and consultancy services is taxable in India @ 15% as per Article 12 Clause 2(a)(2) of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and taxable @ 10% as per Article 12 Clause l(a)(ii)/l(b)(ii) of India-Australia DTAA. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred

Purandar Taluka Nagari Sahakai Patpedi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2659/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. K.C. Salvamani, CIT DR

Section 143Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 5Section 56Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowance u/s 80P of Rs.10,63, 438/-, erred in further making the addition u/s 80P of Rs. 1,19,938 /-, thereby resulting into double taxation 2.11 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in making the addition of alleged undisclosed interest on fixed deposits

Subramanian Sreeram, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1027/BANG/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 90

credit for foreign taxes. Article 24(4)(a) is relevant in the present context. Same is extracted below : "4. In the case of India, double taxation shall be avoided as follows : (i) the amount of Australian tax paid under the laws of Australia and in accordance with the provisions

Michael Page International Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Tax) -3(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 751/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 751/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Michael Page International Pte Limited, C/O.Michael Page International Recruitment Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, 2North Avenue, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Compelx, Mumbai -400 051 Pan:Aahcm-6965-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point,Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi Maru ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Assessment Order By Raising Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi MaruFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

referral fees of INR 6,40,856 as 'Fees for technical services' under Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into between India and Singapore ('the DTAA1) despite the fact that the Appellant has not 'make available' any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, processes to the Indian ... outside India, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more

Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited (in Liquidation), Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.509/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. (In Liquidation) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1),Mumbai, 18Th Floor, Room No.1811, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2022 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2 2. Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That She Is Not Pressing Ground No.1 Of Appeal Challenging Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Ms.Jasmin AmalsadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 147

Explanation may result in taxation of dividend income declared by a foreign company outside India” and that such a situation “may cause unintended double taxation and would be contrary to the generally accepted principles of source rule as well as the object and purpose of the amendment made

M/S Owens Coming Inc, Mumbai vs. The DCIT(Intl Tax) Circle 3(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 459/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Owens-Corning Inc. C/O.Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan:Aaaco-3242-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Issue By Way Of Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha ShahFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

same as 'royalty' as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as well as Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India and USA ('India-USA Tax Treaty'). 2. The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case ... Rs.4,69,49,092/- from its India AEs and claimed the aforesaid income as exempt being covered under Article -7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Further, the assessee has claimed that the assessee does not have Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as per Article -5 of India

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 40A(2)

debt due in its favour. The income is offered to tax in subsequent year and addition in the current year leads to double taxation. 3.22 The Appellant relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of CIT v Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 38 taxmann.com 100 (SC), wherein

Majestic Premises Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharymagestic Premises Vs. Dcit, Cc-2 Private Limited 6Th Floor, Room No. 13 201, Oasis Silver Stone, A-Wing, Ashar I.T. Park, Ram Maruti Road Near Thane – 400 604 Gajanan Maharaj Temple Thane – 400602 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecm5625L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mani Jain & Prateek JainFor Respondent: Mehul Jain

Section 143(2)

been offered in the subsequent assessment year ie AY 2014-15, taxing the same in AY 2013-14 shall amount to double taxation. The appellant has submitted that due to certain procedural formalities, these TDRs could be finally transferred only in AY 2014-15, therefore, the income has been offered

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

liability of DDT payable in respect of Appellant's non-resident shareholders is to be computed having regard to provisions of the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 5.3 The Appellant submits that the valuation adopted by the Id. CIT(A) for computing the amount of DDT is not sustainable ... that liability of dividend distribution tax payable in respect of foreign shareholders is required to be computed on the basis of the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements with respective countries holding that dividend distribution tax liability is only a function of dividend declared and it has nothing

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

Tech Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result we are not inclined to interfere in the order of Ld

ITA 6256/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyaltech Mahindra Limited, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacm3484F ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-2(3), Room No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Acit Circle-2(3)(1), Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Appellant Vs. Tech Mahindra Limited, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacm3484F ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. J.D. Mistri / Sh. Harsh Kapadia Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. K.C. Kanojia- Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. J.D. Mistri / Sh. Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Sh. K.C. Kanojia- CIT-DR

Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 32(1)

before us pertaining to disallowance u/s. 14A made by the AO amounting to Rs 121,77,08,779/- and directions for allowing relief for Double Taxation respectively. AO made disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(i) amounting to Rs 62,16,00,000/-, disallowance as per Rule

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4295/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

loan is to be re-paid normally determines the rate of return on the money lent, i.e. the rate of interest. Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions (Third Edition) under Article 11 in paragraph 115 states as under:- “The existing differences in the levels of interest rates do not depend