← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Noida, Noida vs. M/S Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3559/DEL/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

considered and added in the hands of Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, a second addition in the hands of the appellant would amount to double taxation of the very same sum, which is impermissible in law. That the impugned additions were not required to be made in the hands

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Noida, Noida vs. M/S Allure Developers Private Limited, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3558/DEL/2025[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

considered and added in the hands of Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, a second addition in the hands of the appellant would amount to double taxation of the very same sum, which is impermissible in law. That the impugned additions were not required to be made in the hands

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Noida, Noida vs. M/S Ace Residency Pvt. Ltd, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3493/DEL/2025[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

considered and added in the hands of Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, a second addition in the hands of the appellant would amount to double taxation of the very same sum, which is impermissible in law. That the impugned additions were not required to be made in the hands

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2933/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

included the said interest income in the return of income filed for the instant year i.e., Assessment Year 2019-20 to avoid double taxation. The Ld. AR also drew our attention to the rectification application filed before the CPC and the AO wherein the AO after considering the error pointed

Ceb Llc (Earlier Known As Ceb Inc.), United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2025/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Ceb Llc (Earlier Known As The Assistant Commissioner Ceb Inc.), 1201, Wildson Of Income Tax, Blvd. Arlington, Va 22209, Vs Circle- 1(2)(1), International United States Taxation E-2 Block, Civic Care Of Address Centre, Minto Road, New First International Financial Delhi-110002. Centre, Level-2 Plot No. C-54 & 55, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra, India. Pan- Aadct5119K Assessee Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

taxable as Fee for Technical Services es per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12 of the India- US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO and DRP have erred in holding that

Passion Realtech Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ;ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1269/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

additions made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 on account of cash credit and addition made u/s 69 as unexplained investments which tantamount to double taxation of the same amount in the hands of the appellant. 14.0 That the appellant craves leave, to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement

Passion Realtech Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1268/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

additions made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 on account of cash credit and addition made u/s 69 as unexplained investments which tantamount to double taxation of the same amount in the hands of the appellant. 14.0 That the appellant craves leave, to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement

Delight Propcon Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1267/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Delight Propcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Shop No. 68, Building Income Tax, No. 38, Surya House, Near Central Circle-Ii, New Cgo Pnb Devil Road, Khanpur, Complex, N. H. Iv, Nit New Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Pan: Aadcd6203E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Sh. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

additions made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 on account of cash credit and addition made u/s 69 as unexplained investments which tantamount to double taxation of the same amount in the hands of the appellant. 13.0 That the appellant craves leave, to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement

Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2672/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2672/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2020-21) आअसं.947/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd., Ca Nagesh Kumar, 314, 3Rd Floor, Times Tower, M.G Road, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabcv-6250-D बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj Udhyog Vihar, Phase-V, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nagesh Kumar Behl, Advocate & Shri Amit Khurana, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 26.07.2023 For Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) & Assessment Order Dated 20.012.2024 For Ay 2022-23, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nagesh Kumar Behl, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

separate activity but is an integral and inextricably linked to transportation of goods in International Traffic. Referring to Article 8(3) of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) he asserted that delivery order charges are covered by, “any other activity connected with such transportation”. He submitted that identical issue

M P Swarnamahal, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1106/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. M. P. Swarnamahal, Vs. Acit, 26 H J S Chambers, Richmond Road, Circle – 7(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 025, Karnataka. Bangalore. Pan : Aagfm 2876 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

appellant's income, the sales as reported by the appellant without any variations, the addition of the same sales consideration as income results in double taxation of the same income which is not permitted in the Income Tax Act. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case

Vijayraghavan Subramanian Iyer, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27 3 5 Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 3465/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 198Section 250

ignoring the assessee's contention that amounts were offered to tax in the year(s) when the same were received, thus leading to double taxation. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal 2. All the grounds raised by the assessee are interrelated

Rakesh Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3189/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 250Section 68

method of taxing deposit corpus and applying arbitrary percentage multipliers is neither factually correct nor legally sustainable; as it leads to double taxation and ignores debit/repayment cycles and accepted accounting logic. Therefore the additions are directed to be deleted in all the years under appeal. ITA No. 3188/Mum/2025

Rakesh Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3188/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 250Section 68

method of taxing deposit corpus and applying arbitrary percentage multipliers is neither factually correct nor legally sustainable; as it leads to double taxation and ignores debit/repayment cycles and accepted accounting logic. Therefore the additions are directed to be deleted in all the years under appeal. ITA No. 3188/Mum/2025

Rakesh Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3168/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 250Section 68

method of taxing deposit corpus and applying arbitrary percentage multipliers is neither factually correct nor legally sustainable; as it leads to double taxation and ignores debit/repayment cycles and accepted accounting logic. Therefore the additions are directed to be deleted in all the years under appeal. ITA No. 3188/Mum/2025

Rakesh Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. 41(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3167/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 250Section 68

method of taxing deposit corpus and applying arbitrary percentage multipliers is neither factually correct nor legally sustainable; as it leads to double taxation and ignores debit/repayment cycles and accepted accounting logic. Therefore the additions are directed to be deleted in all the years under appeal. ITA No. 3188/Mum/2025

Birlasoft Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 1116/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Birlasoft Limited Dcit, Circle – 8, Pune 35 & 36, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Vs. Park, Phase-1, Midc, Hinjawadi, Pune – 411057 Pan: Aaack7308N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assesse Is A Public Limited Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Computer & Software Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.95,13,15,400/-. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc & An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 25.01.2021 Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,00,23,03,750/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Assessment Under The E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 On The Following Issues:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 27Section 36(1)(va)Section 51Section 80ISection 90

assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: 2 S. No. Issues i. Claim of Any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP ii. Double Taxation Relief u/s 90/91 iii. Exemption for Undertakings in FTZ/SEZ (Section 10A, 10AA) iv. Refund Claim v. Ind-AS Compliance and Adjustment vi. Deduction Claimed

Bahri Auto Service, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the addition so sustained by the Ld

ITA 3479/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Bahri Auto Service, Cit(Appeals) Plot No. 2, National Faceless Appeal Centre Sion Trombay Road, Vs. (Nfac), Chembur, Delhi-110001. Mumbai-400071. Pan : Aaofb2961P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Bhasin Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 19-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Case Of The Assessee Firm Was Reopened Basis Information That The Assessee-Firm Has Made Certain Cash Deposit In Its Bank Account Maintained With Bank Of Baroda & Fail To File Its Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year. Thereafter, After Issuance Of Notice & Calling For The Necessary Information & Documentation, The Assessment Proceedings Were Completed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Vide Order Dt.

For Appellant: Shri Anil BhasinFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 147

while filing the return of income for the proprietorship concern, the said finding of the Ld.CIT(A) is self-contradictory and will lead to double taxation. It was submitted that where the taxes have already been deposited, the same income would be taxed twice once in the hands

Nirmala Thomas, Gudalur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ooty

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 672/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.672/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2022-23 Nirmala Thomas Income Tax Officer, No.12/342-A G.V.Estate, Ward-1, Thorapalli, Gudalur, Ooty. Tamil Nadu-643 212 [Pan: Aetpt3435K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 56

Thomas and have been duly disclosed by him in his tax returns . It was argued that the addition in her hands therefore tantamounts to double taxation . The Ld council placed on record a voluminous paper book in support of its arguments. 4.0 The Ld DR supported the order of lower

Florida Retirement System, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -2(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 1866/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 115ASection 144Section 144CSection 234Section 234BSection 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

dividend to the assessee’s income without giving credit of the tax already deducted thereon results in a manifest double taxation of the same income in the hands of the same economic owner. The absence of credit in Form 26AS is a function of the depository 19 Florida Retirement System

Vandana Jain, Sonipat vs. PCIT(Central)-1, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2343/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 To 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20 बनाम Vandana Jain Pcit (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, India. Pan No.Aampj6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 68

bogus. (ii) That the Ld. PCIT has erred ignoring the fact that the assessee having declared the bogus purchases also, enhancement will lead to double taxation of the same income. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT has erred both on facts