“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

Jitendrakumar Dahyalal Parmar, Deesa vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 943/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakker, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 44Section 44A

also erred in fact in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,71,047/- which resulted into a double taxation. 5. The Ld. A. O. has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not allowing the coy of the relevant sized material, statement etc. in respect of search action

ITO 19 2 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Avani Azad Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6816/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 143(3)Section 250

hands of actual owner therefore the protective addition in the hands of the assessee could not survive as the same result in double taxation. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of assessee, considering the material on record and the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT held that ... No.6816/Mum/2025; Avani Azad Parikh, Mumbai 7,25,08,820/- was unsustainable and thus directed the same to be deleted in order to prevent double taxation. 11. After having meticulously gone through the undisputed facts of the present case and also considering the material placed on record, we found that

Aparna Girish Hebbani, Australia vs. Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5061/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Aparna Girish Hebbani Income Tax Officer, 21, Hallow Crescent, Ward – 2(2)(1), Augustine Heights, Queensland, Vs. Mumbai Australia (Pan : Ahhph4844H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Harshavardhan V. Bapat & Shri Raj Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit (A) 56, Mumbai Vide Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1061197750(1), Dated 20.02.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.01.2022 For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Harshavardhan V. Bapat and Shri Raj Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

taxed in that country, despite the said income also being offered to tax in India. As per the provisions of the Article 15 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Australia, income derived by a resident of one Contracting State and taxed in the other is eligible ... credit of taxes paid in the source country, to avoid double taxation. The failure to grant the FTC, while simultaneously taxing the same income in India, results in double taxation, which is contrary to the intent and provisions of the DTAA as well as the principles of equity and fairness

Bharti Airtel Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Ward-1(1), International Taxation, New Del;Hi

In the result, ground of appeal no

ITA 4580/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.4580/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2009-10) Bharti Airtel Ltd., Bharti Crescent, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase Ii, New Delhi 110070 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaacb-2894-G बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Ward 1(1), International Taxation, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 201(1)

made the payment of interest to ABN Amro Bank NV, Stockholm branch, and since, in terms of Article 11(3) of the India Sweden Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( 229 ITR Statute 11) any interest paid, on borrowings endorsed by EKN, to a Swedish resident is not taxable in India ... authorities to the effect that ABN Amro Bank NV Branch, Stockholm, is “ a company resident in Sweden within meanings of the convention to avoid double taxation between Sweden and India” and that “the company is registered for taxes as a firm under number 516401-9761”. This plea was rejected

Chand Jewellers, Nakodar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

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

ITA 574/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 574/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chand Jewellers, Bazar Sarafan Vs. Ito-Ward Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [Pan:-Aahfc5908J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Bajaj, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

other hand, the corresponding cash deposits in the bank arising from such sales are simultaneously treated as unexplained money, which results in double taxation and is contrary to law, logic, and settled judicial principles. 8. That the impugned addition is not backed by any cogent or corroborative material evidence ... Taxing the entire sale proceeds as income amounts to taxing gross receipts instead of income, which is impermissible in law and leads to double taxation, since the profit element has already been offered to tax in the trading results accepted by the Assessing Officer. 12. That the appellant craves leave

Sanoj Kumar Singh, Hajipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Vaishali

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 366/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

respect of cash deposits during demonetization period as made by the Assessing Officer, then the same would result into double taxation because the same income has already been offered tax by filing return of income. The Assessing Officer has not disputed the sales and not even rejected the books ... accepted as valid tender. Since the sales proceeds for which cash was received are added u/s 69A of the Act which would amount to double taxation once as sale and another against as unexplained cash credit which is violate principles of taxation. The ld. AR further contended that

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 91/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikaram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 115J

change in accounting policy. Therefore, the Ld AR prayed that suitable directions be given to the AO, so that double taxation on this issue may be avoided in the hands of assessee for AY 2012-13. In this regard, we note that this Tribunal by order dated ... Counsel of the assessee argued that it is offering the income on receipt basis in subsequent years and that the addition tantamount to double taxation. The Ld. Counsel for the revenue argued that the decision of lower authorities is based upon correct understanding and appreciation of the facts case

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 89/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikaram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 115J

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 88/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikaram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 115J

Ishares Core Msci Total International Stock Etf (As A Successor to Ishare Core Taotal International Stock Mauritius Company ), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6774/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

sale of shares acquired before 01/04/2017 (grandfathered sale) as exempt under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). 21. The AO, vide draft assessment order, held that the assessee had opted for the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA and at the same time the benefit ... nature of the treaty and the interaction of the various elements of Viena rules. In the present facts of the case the double taxation avoidance agreements is based on the principle to provide tax relief by preventing double taxation. ITAs No.6050, 6051 & 6774/Mum/2025

Ishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor to Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Tp) 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6051/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6050/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Avance Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 5 of the appeal is

ITA 5420/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Avance Technologies Limited Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), 209, Kapadia Chambers, 599 Jss Vs Mumbai 8Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400002. [Pan: Aaeca5763B] M.K. Road, Mumba I- 400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

income of assessee company. There cannot be any reasons for making addition of utilization of said amount as the same will lead to double taxation of same amount. Once as a commission income is added and again added utilization of said commission income. The assessee claimed telescoping of commission income ... there was a commission income, it should have been offered to tax. The argument of assessee that addition of cash deposit is a double taxation was also rejected by holding that addition of commission income is an estimate on the quantum of bogus transaction provided. The addition under section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 5721/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

action of the AO in making the additions in the assessment order of credit entries appearing in bank of the appellant leads to double taxation of the same income which is not permissible in law. It is trite that the same income cannot be subjected to tax twice. Hence ... additions in the assessment order of credit entries appearing in bank of the relative, family members, clients, friends of the appellant will lead to double taxation of same income in hand of respective persons and the appellant. Hence, the additions made by the AO on account of credit entries appearing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 5719/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Nitin Dwivedi, Hardoi vs. CIT(A), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 362/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Nitin Dwivedi V. The Ito – 3(3) Avas Vikas Colony Hardoi Prahladpuri, Hardoi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ajfpd9057Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

have granted telescoping of cash withdrawals against redeposits and should have applied the peak-credit method; failure to do so has led to double taxation and an excessive addition. Interest under sections 234A/B/C excessive & consequential Levy of interest is automatic only on correct assessed income; once the quantum addition

Dharam Chand Agarwal, Kanpur (Uttar Pardesh) vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur- I

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

ITA 358/LKW/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Dharam Chand Agarwal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 14/75 D Gopal Vihar Civil Lines, Kanpur-I, U.P. Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Aanpa1942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kanpur-1 On 31.03.2024 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Pcit Has Set Aside The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 28.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B For The A.Y. 2016-17 & Directing Him To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Dated 28.03.2022, Which Has Been Set Aside U/S 263 Of The Act By The Impugned Order Passed By Pr. Cit, Itself Was Illegal & Was Not Enforceable Due To Various Infirmities In The Initiation & Conclusion Of Re-Assessment Proceedings, The Same Could Not Have Been Subjected To Revision U/S 263 Of The Act & Consequently The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & Wholly Without Jurisdiction. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Nfac U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & In Setting Aside The Same By Exercising His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

assessee had inflated his purchases for Rs. 100 Lacs and thus reduced net profit by the same account. Accordingly, there was no double taxation and since it was clear that the assessment order passed by the ld. AO was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. The Indure Private Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 4640/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. The Indure Private Limited, Income Tax, Indure House, Greater Kailash Part Ii, Delhi South Delhi 1100 48 Pan :Aaact0121C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

assessee. Further, disallowance of alleged bogus purchases when the sales that stemmed out of such purchases have been accepted, would result in double taxation in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the said purchases cannot be held to be bogus and the proposed variation on account of the alleged bogus

Mitsui Kinzoku Components Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3912/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

October 2020, wherein it was held that DDT is tax on dividend income of the shareholder and thus, the beneficial tax rates of the Double taxation avoidance agreement is applicable, the assessee filed an application under section 237 of the Act with the AO on 27 November 2020 requesting ... been further mentioned that tax rate of 10% is applicable on the distribution of dividends as per Article 10 of Indo-Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) on the tax resident of Japan. Accordingly, the assessee vide its representation has requested the undersigned to issue an order