← 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

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

deducted Tax Deducted at Source (`I-DS') by invoking provisions of the Article 14 and Article 15 of the India-Italy Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (`DTAA') and India-Germany DTAA respectively ie "Individual Personal Service"' (`IPS'). 3. The learned AO disallowed the payment made to non- resident freelancers considering ... these amounts. The Ld.AR submitted that these payments were made to the parties located in Italy and Germany and India has entered into double taxation avoidance agreement(DTAA). It was submitted that, as per the DTAA, these payments are not taxable in India and therefore provisions of section 195 were

Amicrop Management India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 210/BANG/2017[2012 -2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 210/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 701 & 702, The Income Tax Officer, 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Ward – 1 (1)(3), Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Bangalore. Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 2171/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Unit No. 701 & 702, Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Income Tax, Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sherry Goyal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

2171/Bang/2017 computing working capital adjustment. It was thus submitted by the Ld.AR that 5% applied by the Ld.TPO/AO amounts to double taxation. On the contrary the Ld.DR relied on orders passed by authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed

Trigyn Technologies Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 6585/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 92C

incomes of controlled taxpayers and to place them on parity with uncontrolled, unrelated taxpayers. The exercise undertaken should not result in over or double taxation. Thus, the Assessing Officer/TPO can segregate AMP expenses as an independent international transaction, but only after elucidating grounds and reasons for not accepting the bunching

ITO (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6755/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ao Without Any Reasonable Cause & Despite Being Given Sufficient Opportunities?" (B) "Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Accepting Additional Evidence Is Not Correct As Per Judgment Of The Delhi High Court In Case Of M/S. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (204Taxmann 106(Delhi) 2. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Addition U/S. 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Cannot Be Made In This Case, Because The Ao Has Not Made Addition U/S. 68, But Has Made The Addition As An Unexplained Investment Which Is Subject Matter Of Section 69 Of The I.T. Act, 1 961 3. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Source Of Investment Amounting To Rs. 25.37 Crs. In M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd. By The Assessee Lies In Dubai On 2 Shri Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 68Section 69

shall apply. From the above it is clear that the sum cannot be assessed under Income Tax Act 1961 in India as provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement override provisions of Income Tax Act 1961. As per paragraph 1 of assessment order, the appellant is nonresident. He is resident ... proposition preferred in the said order of the ITAT duly supports the view taken by learned CIT(A) wherein he has referred to Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Learned CIT(A) has observed that taxability of sum in Dubai Bank account is beyond the jurisdiction of Indian tax authorities

Tyrolit (I) Superabrasive Tools Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 539/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(5)Section 43A

Ld.AO to examine the terms of the agreement under which right was granted to the assessee in the light of the provisions of the Double Taxation Page 6 Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) as to whether the same would amount to royalty. 15. Respectively following the same, with similar direction, we deem

Kakkabe vs. S Bank Limited, Kodugu

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

ITA 490/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kakkabe Vssn Bank The Principal Ltd., Commissioner Of Main Road, Kakkabe, Income-Tax, Kodagu – 571 212. Mysore. Pan: Aaabk0958P Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit I Date Of Hearing : 31-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 06.03.2020 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Mysore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order As Passed By The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Arbitrary, Unjust & Illegal Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Case. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & On Law, The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit Has Assumed The Jurisdiction U/S 263 Under Incorrect Application Of Law As Twin Condition Of "Erroneous Order & Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue" As Enunciated U/S 263 Were Not Satisfied Simultaneously & Therefore Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 & Impugned Order Passed Thereunder Liable To Be Quashed As Void-Ab-Initio. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances & Law, The Original Order Passed By The Learned Ao Was After Proper Application Of Mind & Proper Appreciations Of Law & The Intervention Caused By The Hon'Ble Pr. Cit By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 Has No Sanction Of Settled

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT I
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 263Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

have been paid and therefore direction u/s 260 to verify the claim of the appellant is required to be deleted as there cannot be double taxation on the same set of Income. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and on law, the Hon'ble Pr.CIT ought

M/S Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3133/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3133/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 65/2, Bagmane Laurel, Commissioner Of Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C.V Raman Nagar, Circle – 2 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 093. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcc2470Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 133(6)Section 92CSection 92D

working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and loan and advances to international transaction would amount to double taxation. Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Orange Business Services India Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 6570/Del/2016 vide its order dated

American Power Conversion (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and loan and advances to international transaction would amount to double taxation. Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Orange Business Services India Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 6570/Del/2016 vide its order dated

Asstt. CIT -3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 908/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 908 & 909/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2012-13) बिधम/ Acit Circle-3(1)(1) M/S. Rideema Toll Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, 6Th Floor, M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Ltd. 501-B, 5Th Floor, Silver Utopia Road, Mumbai-400020. Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca0266H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2013-14 & 2012-13. Ita. No.909/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.02.2020 Passed By The Cit(A)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Addition Made On

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 195Section 40

required to be deducted again at the time of reimbursing salary cost to Roche Group companies; otherwise, the same will result in double taxation i.e. one at the time of payment of salary/social security to the employees in India and second at the time of reimbursement to group companies

M/S. Praxair India Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2209/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

loan is to be repaid 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

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1138/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1137/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1136/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1135/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1134/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1133/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1132/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1131/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1130/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1129/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

income tax act on payment made for transponder charges constituting royalty u/s 9 (1) (vi) of the act or Under the relevant double taxation avoidance agreement. 03. The facts are common in all these appeals. Assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertisement time for different television channels ... payments are not subject to tax deduction at source. 05. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, he considered article 12 of India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, article 13 of India United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and article 12 of India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement considering