“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

Gagan Chandaliya, Surat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 305/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 147

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

M/S Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3403/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and loans and advances to associated enterprise would amount to double taxation. Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Orange Business Services India Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 286 has observed that

The Dy.Citi -Cir 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Park Air Systems Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2362/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashish K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

should not be considered as Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 13(2) of the India and UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA‟). In reply, assessee submitted that the software is being supplied along with the hardware (i.e. embedded software in the equipment

Sri Ningappa Managuli, Hutti vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Raichur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 684/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue

Section 115BSection 68Section 69A

customers was already admitted as income and if the cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Sri Ningappa Managuli, Hutti Page

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2015–16

ITA 7262/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 250

under the Singapore Companies Act. The assessee is a tax resident of Singapore and accordingly, is entitled to the beneficial provisions of India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA’). The assessee is registered as Foreign Institutional Investor („FII‟) with Securities and Exchange Board of India („SEBI’) and conducts portfolio investments ... erred in directing the A.O. to follow the decision in ITA no.1458/Kol./2011, in the event of any income being charged under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement in final computation of demand because such directions tantamount to setting aside the issue for which the Ld. CIT(A) is not authorized. Credit

DCIT(It)- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2015–16

ITA 6098/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 250

M/S. D.C. Polyester Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1944/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S D C Polyester Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income S. V. Industrial Estate, Tax Cc-6(4), Mumbai, Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Mumbai - 400063 Vs. Air India Building, Pan: Aaacd3816C Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravikant Pathak (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2022

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak (AR)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (CIT DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 41(1)

financial statement for year ended on 31/03/2021. The Appellant submits that action of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition has resulted into double taxation of the same amount as the Appellant itself has written back the said amount in financial year ended on 31/03/2021; hence, the addition confirmed

Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft Private Limtied, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 835/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

filed application with the Competent Authority in the United States of America ("USA") invoking the mutual agreement procedure ('MAP') under Article 27 of the Double taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") between India and USA on 17/03/2016. The Competent Authorities issued a resolution/closure of dispute letter dated 13/12/2021 that was accepted

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 810/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Goldiam Jewellery Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT (Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 729/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT–DR

Section 10ASection 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 253(1)(c)Section 263Section 263(1)

from Singapore Tax Authorities about foreign bank accounts cannot be shared, since the same is received under Exchange of Information Article of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and its use and disclosure is strictly governed by It and as per the terms prescribed in Manual on Exchange

Goldiam Jewellery Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 728/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT–DR

Section 10ASection 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 253(1)(c)Section 263Section 263(1)

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Range-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1031/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2017-18

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

Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited] to be 'Royalty as Assessment year: 2017-18 Page 2 of 25 defined under Article 13(3)(a) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United Kingdom ('India-UK Tax Treaty'); Ground number 3 erred in not following the decision of the jurisdictional Mumbai ... India; however, the Assessing Officer has taxed the same as Royalty under the Act as well as in terms of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (in short „India-UK DTAA‟). The stand of the assessee has been that its receipts from TCL are in the nature of „business

Factiva Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6455/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

Section 13(3)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with Article 13 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('the DTAA') entered into between India and UK. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned ... subjected to scrutiny. The assessee also claimed that the amount received by it from DJCIPL is in the nature of business income under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and UK. 4. It is also the claim by the assessee that it does not have any Permanent Establishment

Corp Attire, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144(3)Section 92C

also subject matter of TP adjustment by the TPO and to that extent there should be a direction to ensure that there is no double taxation of the same income. We accept the prayer of the learned Counsel for the assessee and direct the AO/TPO to consider the plea

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 195Section 201(1)

knowledge, registered designs, software, and works of artistic, literary, or musical nature. 30. We refer to the commentary in Prof.Klaus Vogel's Commentary on Double Taxation Convention, wherein, the term ‘Royalty’ is defined as under: “Paragraph 2 contains definition of the term ‘royalties’. These relate, in general, to rights ... clause (iva) of Explanation 2. 42. We also refer to the commentary relied by the Ld.Counsel form Prof. Klaus Vogel's Commentary on Double Taxation Convention, wherein ‘Secrete formulae or process’ is defined as under: Secret formulae or processes: This covers Know-how in the narrower sense of the term

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 195Section 201(1)

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Usa vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 863/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

substantive basis both under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") as well Assessment year: 2017-18 Page 2 of 17 as the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into between India and USA ('India-USA DTAA'). In accordance with India-USA DTAA, the receipts from sale of Novell Software Products ... examining this aspect of the matter, it may also be useful to refer to the following extracts, defining permanent establishment, from the India Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [1984] 146 ITR (St.) 214]:- ARTICLE 5 PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT Assessment year: 2017-18 Page 5 of 17 1. For the purposes

DDIT(It) 1(2) vs. Clough Projects International Pty. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by revenue and CO’s filed by the assessee are treated as dismissed

ITA 2952/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2952/Mum/2010 & Cross Objection No. 09/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4930/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No. 61/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4931/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No. 62/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri PurushottamFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Thakkar

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 44B

completed within the duration of less than nine months; that it was entitled to exemption under article 7 of the Convention for Avoidance of Double Taxation (CADT); that in the alternative, it was liable to be assessed on the basis of the accounts annexed to the returns, which were based

M/S. Maxim Integrated Products India Sales Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 208/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 92C

Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. The ACIT (Int. Tax) 2(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 2040/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pranith Golecha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 234BSection 9

nature of royalty under the provisions of section 9(l)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA*} between India and USA. 2.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and DRP erred ... nature of royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as article 12(13) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the USA. 8. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue though admitted the fact that in the earlier years issue