“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

M/S Monarch, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 171/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Nischal B, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

assessee, the case for assessment year 2017-2018 has been settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, according to him, there cannot be double taxation on the same income. The issue raised needs to be examined by the A.O. Accordingly, we restore the case for assessment years

M/S Monarch, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Nischal B, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed in terms of

ITA 601/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 32(1)(i)

assessee’s employees. iii) Non granting of deduction onprofit on sale of assetsamounting to Rs. 2,20,86,134/- thereby resulting in double taxation of same amount. 2.1 The assessee is before this Tribunal challenging the above mentioned additions / disallowances by raising the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That ... assets, amounting to Rs. 2,20,86,134 and the amount erroneouslycontinued to remain a part of the business profits, thereby resulting in double taxation of the said amount. 6. That the Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in not granting Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit amounting

ACIT, Circle- 30(1), New Delhi vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 5754/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

also 3 ITA.Nos.5711 & 5754/Del./2017 Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi. allowed the consequential demo tax credit relief under the Indo Oman Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), upheld the disallowance of amortization of lease payment to the tune of Rs.45,75,672/- claimed as business expenditure and granted relief

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 30(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 5711/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate

Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

treated as FTS and bring it to tax for the year under consideration. 3. Assessee before the authorities below submitted that provisions of double taxation avoidance agreement between India and Singapore are more beneficial, according to which, assessee was under a bonafide belief that the professional charges received from M/s.MTS

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2973/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

that whether the dividend income from OMIFCO-OMAN is entitled for relief u/s 90 of the Income Tax Act 1961 under the Indo-Oman Double Taxation Treaty has been a subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi ... developments in Oman, the Indian investors should be able to obtain relief in India under Article 25(4) of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation. 19. From the above clarifications there remains no doubt regarding the purpose of granting exemption to dividend income. The interpretation of Omani Tax Laws

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2972/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

M/S. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2342/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

M/S. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2341/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

M/S.Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 364/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Synamedia Ltd. [Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited’], The Assistant C/O. M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, International Survey No. 51-64/4, Taxation, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Vs. Circle – 1(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aabcn2524L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Dilip, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021

For Appellant: Shri

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

licensing of software by the Appellant to be in the nature of 'royalty' as defined under the provisions of the Act read with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into between India and United Kingdom (`DTAA'). 2. The learned AO has erred in fact, in treating the receipts pertaining ... stated earlier, the NDS UK is based in United Kingdom ("UK") and the payment is made by Bharti a company based in India. The Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA" / "Treaty") between India and UK is applicable in this case. Article 12 of the Treaty deals with royalties. Sub-clause

Girish Kidiyappa Nashi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 680/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 144Section 69

said cash deposits of Rs.40,23,500/- was considered in the hands of Mrs. Sharmila .R. The action of CIT(A) amounts to double taxation 4. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to enhance the income of Rs.40,23,500/, which ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) action of enhancing the income in the hands of the Appellant by Rs. 40,23,500/- amounts to double taxation. 10. Without prejudice to the above, it was submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has no jurisdiction or power to enhances the income on the basis

M/S Tecnotree Convergence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3158/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

utilised in India. In case the argument canvassed by the learned counsel is accepted, it will certainly amount to violation of double taxation treaty. On the other and, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Toshuku Ltd (supra)** while dealing with non resident commission agent has held that

M/S. Tecnotree Convergence Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3157/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

M/S. Tecnotree Convergence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3156/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

M/S Moonfrog Labs Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 3066/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Moonfrog Labs Pvt. Ltd., 16/3, Level-3, The Assistant Adarsh Yellavarthy Centre, Commissioner Of Cambridge Road, Income Tax, Ulsoor Jogupalya, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bangalore – 560008. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaicm9563H Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh .K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2017 Passed By The Acit, Circle – 4 (1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore (`A0') Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax- (Appeals)-4 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

said disallowance, if any, should be restricted to 30% of the expenditure as per the Non Discrimination Article in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements. The appellant prays accordingly.” Page 3 of 8 Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is an Indian Company engaged

Anantpur Kalpana, Gangavathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Anantpur Kalpana, Vs. Ito, 1/1/1, Mahalaxmi Enterprises, Ward – 1, Hosakeri, Building Bamboo Bazar, Koppal. Gangavathi – 583 227, Karnataka. Pan : Clepk 8005 L Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 16.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. She Is Proprietrix Of A Business In The Name & Style Of Mahalaxmi Enterprises. The Business Consists Of Dealing In Beedi, Tea Powder & Pan Masala. For Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,49,520/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noticed That There Were Several Cash Deposits In The Two Bank Accounts Of The Assessee. Out Of The Aforesaid Cash Deposits, The Ao Culled Out, The Deposits That Was Made Of Bank Notes That Were Declared As Not Legal Tender Owing To Demonetization Of Currency. The Details Of The Total Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In Her Bank Account & The Cash Deposits Of Cash/Currency Notes That Were Declared As Not Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 115BSection 68

Appeal No 336/Ind/2012 wherein on identical facts of the case it was held that the claim of the assessee that such addition resulted into double taxation of the same income in the same year because on one hand cost of the sales has been taxed (after deducting gross profit from ... 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. It was also submitted that the assessee was having

Intelsat Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4946/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 271Section 9

Explanation 2 to section 9(i)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and Article 12(3) of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). 4. That without prejudice to the above, on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Panel

Chander Mohan Lal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1869/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 40A(2)

response, it was submitted by the assessee that since the payees are resident of countries with whom India has entered into Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (in short, DTAA), the payees would be protected under the beneficial provisions of respective DTAAs. Hence, payments made to them are not subject

Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4325/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C. N. Prasad(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Turner Broadcasting Dcit (International System Asia Pacific Inc. Vs Taxation), Circle – 3 (1) (1) C/O Pricewaterhouse New Delhi Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Sucheta 1St Bhawan, Gate No.2, Floor, 11-A, Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi-110002 Pan No.Aabct6254F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 271Section 9

International India Private Limited (‘TIIPL’) as royalty under Section 9(i)(vi) of the Act and also as per the provisions of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’). 3.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP and the Ld. AO erred