“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

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pte.Ltd ., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT(International Tax)Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 742/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Is A Company Incorporated In & Fiscally Domiciled In, The Republic Of Singapore. During The Relevant Previous Year, The Assessee Company Provided Bushing & Fabrication Services To Its

Section 143(3)

hands of the assessee, as fees for technical services under article 12(4)(a) of the India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The assessee is aggrieved, and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.: 2049/Mum/2016, 5731/Mum/2019, and 742/Mum/2021 Assessment years: 2012-13, 2016-17 and 2017-18 Page ... case in light of the applicable legal position. 9. Let us first take note of the related provisions of the India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [(1994) 209 ITR (Stat) 1; Indo Singapore tax treaty, in short], which were, at the relevant point of time, as follows: Article 9- ASSOCIATED

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT (It) Circle-3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 5731/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us Is A Company Incorporated In & Fiscally Domiciled In, The Republic Of Singapore. During The Relevant Previous Year, The Assessee Company Provided Bushing & Fabrication Services To Its

Section 143(3)

Owens-Corning(Singapore)Pte.Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Internatioal Taxation) Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2049/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Us Is A Company Incorporated In & Fiscally Domiciled In, The Republic Of Singapore. During The Relevant Previous Year, The Assessee Company Provided Bushing & Fabrication Services To Its

Section 143(3)

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 5025/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1999-2000

Section 143(3)

operations through the Indian subsidiary are taxable in India as royalty under article 13(3)(a) of the then applicable India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement dated 26th October 1993 (the applicable Indo-UK tax treaty, in short). The Assessing Officer also relied upon the decision ... 4997/Mum/2004) 1. In holding that the Appellant had a permanent establishment in India by virtue of Article 5(2)(k) of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA). 2. In holding that by virtue of Article 5(4) of the DTAA the Appellant would be regarded to have

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 5024/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1998-1999

Section 143(3)

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 4997/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1999-2000

Section 143(3)

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) RG. 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 4996/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1998-1999

Section 143(3)

Owens Corning Inc., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT(International Tax)Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 741/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

same as 'royalty' as per section 9(1)(vii) 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 ... lease rentals received by the assessee as Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12 of India USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA‟). Owens Corning Inc. ITA No.741/Mum./2021 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from record

Michael Page International Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Intl. Taxn.)-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 144/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

referral fees of INR 6,46,900 as 'Fees for technical services' under Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into between India and Singapore ('the DTAA') despite the fact that the Appellant has not 'make available' any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, processes to the Indian ... engaged in the business of, inter alia, providing executive search and recruitment services. The assessee is entitled to the benefits of the India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [(1994) 209 ITR (Statute) 1; Indo- Singapore tax treaty, in short]. During the relevant previous year, the assessee received

Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1212/MUM/2021[AADC4348L]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022

Section 143(3)

company incorporated in, and fiscally domiciled in, the Republic of Singapore. The assessee is entitled to the benefits of the India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [(1994) 209 ITR (Statute)1; Indo- Singapore tax treaty, in short]. During the relevant previous year, the assessee received ... 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

Anl Singapore Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxationa)-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1014/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Is A Company Incorporated In & Fiscally Domiciled In, The Republic Of Singapore & Is Engaged In The Shipping Business. The Assessee Had Earnd An Inland Haulage Charges Of Rs 13,32,16,141 Which Was Not Offered To Tax. When, During The Course Of The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Put To The Assessee As To Why The Said Income Not Be Brought To Tax In The Hands Of The Assessee, It Was, Inter Alia, Submitted By The Assessee As Follows: Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 2 Of 5

Section 143(3)

haulage charges of Rs 13,32,16,141 received by the assessee are covered by the scope of article 8 of the India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [(1994) 209 ITR (Statute)1; Indo- Singapore tax treaty, in short], and are, as such, taxable only in Singapore. 3. The issue

DCIT 2 (3), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3850/MUM/2014[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit -2(3) V. M/S. Tata Sons Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 24, Homi Modi Street Mumbai - 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaact4060A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji & Ms. Aastha Shah Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 04.02.2014 For The A.Y. 1990-1991. 2. Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds In Its Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case." 2. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Directing The A.O To Grant The 2 M/S. Tata Sons Limited Double Taxation Relief To The Assessee At Rs.1.00.49,042/- Without Appreciating That Dit Relief Can Only Be Granted When The Income Taxed By Foreign Authority Is Included In The Total Income Of The Assessee. However, In The Present Case Foreign Income Is Not Included In Total Income 3. For These & Other Grounds That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, The Decision Of The Cit(A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored.

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in directing the A.O to grant the 2 M/s. Tata Sons Limited double taxation relief to the assessee at Rs.1.00.49,042/- without appreciating that DIT relief can only be granted when the income taxed by foreign authority is included

M/S. Xerox Business Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2595/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Nageshwar Rao

Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

respect of transept is on issues which already stands settled by map resolution between India and United States as per article 25 of double taxation avoidance agreement. The assessee therefore wishes to withdraw the issues alleged in respect of the transfer pricing adjustment made by the Ld.AR and impugned order

DCIT Central Cir -1(2), Mumbai vs. Saunak Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1243/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: None

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

processing and export of diamonds. In this case, specific information (hereinafter called as Base Note) was received from the French Government, under DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) that the present assessee was a beneficial owner of undisclosed overseas bank accounts in the names of the companies Sulay Trading

DCIT Central Cir -1(2), Mumbai vs. Saunak Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1242/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: None

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

DCIT Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai vs. Milan Kavin Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1241/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: None

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Milan Kavin Parikh diamonds. In this case, specific information (hereinafter called as Base Note) was received from the French Government, under DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) that the present assessee was a beneficial owner of undisclosed overseas bank accounts in the names of the companies Sulay Trading Ltd and Laptis

ITO 23 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sandhya Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeal/cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7724/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 148

declared the relevant transactions relating to past dissolution of firm and offered the same to taxation in the existing proprietorship business. It amounts to double taxation. Therefore, in the similar situation ITAT Calcutta Bench in the case of DCIT v. Mani Square Ltd., (supra) has passed the order in favour

ITO 23 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sandhya Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeal/cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7723/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 148

Rare Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantsr

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliayaFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran P. Unavekar

Section 132

been substantively added in the case of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, thereby making the same addition in the hands of two assesses leading to double taxation. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition

DCIT (It) -4(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

ITA 1759/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

payment received for providing training services as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between Indian and Netherlands as per Article 12(5) thereon. Further, the ld. AO treated the payment received for providing