“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Anushka Estates, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 759/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Purvankara Projects Ltd in subsequent years and taxing the same income related to the same project in AY 2016-17 would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. Further, we are of the consideredopinion that the entire exercise is tax neutral only and the only dispute wasthe point

K C Raju Multi Speciality Hospital, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1056/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234B

total income. Once the receipts are accepted as business income, the same amount cannot again be taxed as unexplained money. This results in double taxation of the same income, which is impermissible in law. . ITA Nos.1055 - 1056/Bang/2025 Page 25 of 31 20.7 The assessee also submitted that the entire addition

K C Raju Multi Speciality Hospital, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1055/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234B

Income Tax Officer 23.2.1, Mumbai vs. Mig Co Op Housing Society Group II Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4075/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi, AR

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

income received by them in their hands there can -not be any justification for taxing the same in the hands of society. No double taxation and no double deduction is one of the well recognised and fundamental principles of taxation. In our opinion, signing of agreement by the members ... additional flats then the Society would not be responsible to pay taxes on the same amount again, otherwise the same would tantamount to be double taxation, however since the payment of taxes could not be verified by the authorities below, thus for the purpose of verification only that the actual

Aamir Khatri, Mumbai vs. DCIT-17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 3586/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

iiid) of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that. “16. The High Court has sought to meet the argument of double taxation made on behalf of the assessees by holding that where the face value of the DEPB was offered to tax in the year in which ... subsequent assessment year chargeable under clause (iiid) of Section 10 Aamir Khatri 28. The interpretation suggested by us, therefore, does not lead to double taxation of the same income, which the legislature must be presumed to have avoided.” 6. The Ld.DR argued and stated that the DEPB licence sale

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Company Limited, Hong Kong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2020-21 is partly allowed

ITA 2674/DEL/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2353 और 2674/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2020-21 और 2021-22)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Aditya Vohra & Tanmay Dhakras, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR

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

important principle which needs to be kept in mind in the interpretation of the provisions of an international treaty, including one for double taxation relief is that treaties are negotiated and entered into at a political level go ahead and have several considerations as their bases. Commenting on this aspect ... matter, David R. Davis in Principles of International Double Taxation Relief , David R. Davis, Principles of International Double Taxation Relief , Pg.4 (London Sweet & Maxwell, 1985)points out that the main function of a Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty should be seen in the context of aiding commercial relations between treaty partners

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Company Limited, Hongkong vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2020-21 is partly allowed

ITA 2353/DEL/2023[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2353 और 2674/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2020-21 और 2021-22)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Aditya Vohra & Tanmay Dhakras, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur vs. Kilburn Management Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 444/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.444/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Jamshedpur…….... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Kilburn Management Services Pvt. Ltd..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, D Block, White House, Park Street, Kol-700016. [Pan: Aabck1160H] Appearances By: Shri Sumit Dasgupdta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Dr Submitted That Although The Tax Effect Involved In The Present Appeal Is Below The Monetary Limit Prescribed Under Cbdt Circular No. 9 Of 2024, The Case Falls Under The Exception Clause Provided In The Circular And, Therefore, The Appeal Of The Revenue Deserves To Be Adjudicated On Merits. 3. Per Contra, The Ld. Ar For The Assessee Strongly Objected To The Said Submission & Contended That Cbdt Circular No. 9 Of 2024 Prescribes The Monetary Limit Of ₹60,00,000 For Filing Appeals Before The Tribunal & In The Present Case, The Tax Effect Is Only ₹15,74,009/-, Which Is Far Below The Prescribed Limit. Even, The Case Of The Present Assessee Does Not Fall Under Any Of The Exceptions Clause Enumerated In The Said

Section 145Section 147Section 250

already included in the said declared profit. Therefore, any separate addition of the same amount would clearly result in double taxation, which is impermissible in law. Further, while making the addition, the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account under section

Sharad Sarawgi, Giridih vs. ACIT, C. C., Dhanbad

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

ITA 424/RAN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.424/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sharad Sarawgi….... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Sarawgi Sadan, Dumri Road, Giridih, Jharkhand- 815301. [Pan: Acspj2613G] Vs. Acit, C.C-Dhanbad………….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ci(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 12.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Part Of The Saraogi Group. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Group On Various Dates, Along With A Survey Under Section 133A Of The Act At Certain Business Premises Of The Group. During The Course Of Search, Cash Aggregating To ₹2,15,50,000 Was Found From The Bedroom Of Shri Santosh Kumar Saraogi. In The Statement Recorded Under Section 132(4), It Was Stated That Cash Of ₹21,20,000 Belonged To The Present Assessee, While The Balance Amount Belonged To Other Concerns. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) For Ay 2021–22 Declaring Total Income Of ₹4,66,180. Subsequently, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

part of the same cash can be taxed again in the hands of the present assessee. The addition of ₹21,20,000 results in double taxation, which is impermissible in law. It is a settled principle of law that the same income cannot be assessed twice in the hands ... such circumstances, no part of the same cash can be assessed again in the hands of the assessee, as it would amount to double taxation of the same income, which is not permissible. Once ownership of the entire cash is accepted in the hands of the company, the addition

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Guwahati vs. M/S. S.R.K.M. Steels (P) Ltd, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4) M/S S.R.K.M Steels (P) Ltd. Room No.707, 7Th Floor, Aayakar M/S Srkm Steels (P) Ltd. Lokhra Bhawan Poorva, G.S. Road, Road, P.O. Sawkuchi, Guwahati- Vs. Guwahati-781005, Assam 781034, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs5046E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar karnani, DR

Section 133(6)

been violated by AO in making the addition. The action of the LdAOis even voilative of the settled principles of Double Taxation and Consistency. The appellant had contended that it is following the Percentage of Completion Method in letter and Spirit ... further find, even presuming, that the provisions of AS-9 have been correctly invoked by the Ld AO, the same would tantamount of Double Taxation, moreso, when the appellant had offered the corresponding Revenue in subsequent years. Hence I hereby delete the addition made by the AO. This ground

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1126/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

expenditure account of the trust and hence it is already shown as skin income of the trust. Your proposed action will result into double taxation of same amount. Hence all the donations are out of ambit of the provisions of section 68. Hence we object for reopening of assessment ... Expenditure’ account and the expenses incurred during the year have been claimed against such donations and that the proposed action will result into double taxation of same account and therefore the donations in question are out of the ambit of the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The assessee

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 1125/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

expenditure account of the trust and hence it is already shown as skin income of the trust. Your proposed action will result into double taxation of saте amount. Hence all the donations are out of ambit of the provisions of section 68. Hence we object for reopening of assessment ... Expenditure' account and the expenses incurred during the year have been claimed against such donations and that the proposed action will result into double taxation of same account and therefore the donations in question are out of the ambit of the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The assessee

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1124/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 1123/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 1122/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

expenditure account of the trust and hence it is already shown as skin income of the trust. Your proposed action will result into double taxation of same amount. Hence all the donations are out of ambit of the provisions of section 68. Hence we object for reopening of assessment ... Expenditure' account and the expenses incurred during the year have been claimed against such donations and that the proposed action will result into double taxation of same account and therefore the donations in question are out of the ambit of the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The assessee

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1121/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

Shivi Srivastava, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT Or ADIT (Int. Tax), Noida

ITA 2681/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 9

that the salary received in India pertained to services rendered/exercised outside India and is exempt in view of Article 15 of the India China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement as well as provisions of section 9 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. 2 ITA No.- 2681/Del/2024 Shivi Srivastava 3. That

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur vs. Benko Traders Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 436/RAN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Cc, Jamshedpur…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, Block D, White House, Park Stree, Wb – 700016. [Pan: Aabcb1888R] Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Dated 25.09.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139 Of The Act Declaring A Total Income As Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 28.11.2017 Determining The Total Income At ₹9,88,28,406. Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Relating To Alleged Use Of Stock Exchange Platform (Bse/Nse) For Generating Fictitious Long-Term/Short-Term Capital Gains Through Certain Scripts & Alleged Accommodation Entries, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons Under Section 147 Of The Act. A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued The Assessee Filed Its Return Declaring The Same Income

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

already been included in profit & loss account of the assessee, in total disregard of the settled principal of Act & law that there cannot be double taxation of any particular income. On perusal of material available on record, it is noticed that, the assessee has done the impugned transaction in derivative ... when the entire amount of ₹1,64,60,100 was trading receipt treating sales already offered to tax as unexplained cash credit amounts to double taxation, prohibited in law. Therefore the Ld. CIT (A) rightly allowed relief to the assessee and there is no need to interfered in the order

DCIT(It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touch Tmatsu India LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4655/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)

Global Brand, Global Communications and Global Technology / Knowledge Management do not constitute “royalty” within the meaning of Article 13(3) of the India–UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, and consequently in holding that no tax was required to be deducted at source under section 195 of the Act. The Revenue ... India-UK DTAA. The relevant observations of the ld. CIT (A) are as under : “12. Comparing Article 11(3) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with the detailed breakup reproduced above form basis for decision. Article 11(3) has several parts and we have to focus whether the payment

DCIT(It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Haskin & Sells LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4654/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)