← 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

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Reliance Retail Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4244/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

consolidated in the books of the assessee while computing its taxable income in India. The assessee relied upon Article 23 of the India–China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, which provides that where a resident of India derives income which may be taxed in China, India shall allow as deduction from

Reliance Retail Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3510/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Selvarajan Senthil Kumar, Thanjavur vs. Income Tax Department, Thanjavur

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3158/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Ramya Murlikumaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Saujanya Ranjan, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

offered the advances for tax, as seen from the audit report and books of accounts, adding the impugned sum once more, is nothing but double taxation. Accordingly, we hold that the addition made u/s.69A of the Act is untenable and the appeal is allowed. Therefore, in :-6-: ITA No: 3158/Chny/2025

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5505/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5506/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2011-12 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5507/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2012-13 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5508/Mum/2025 Dcit- Circle 1(3)(1) A.Y: 2013-14 Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs Diebold India Private Limited Rolta Tower-1, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 39, Central Road, Midc, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 Pan – Aabcd633Ον (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No. 308/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025) Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Co. No. 309/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5506/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2011-12 With Co. No. 310/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5507/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2012-13 With Co. No. 311/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5508/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2013-14 Diebold India Private Limited Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar/ Shri Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee Challenging The Different Impugned Orders Dt. 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 04.06.2025 & 04.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Appeals & Cross Objections Is Common & Identical & Belongs To One Assessee Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5507/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

concerned with are 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. 6. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 15.05.2002, after applying Article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ["DTAA], Diebold India Private Limited between India and USA, and upon applying section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, found

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5506/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5505/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5390/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

business receipts as unexplained deposits under section 69A of the Act. It was contended that it was nothing but a case of double taxation. The ld. AR further submitted that the 13 ITA No. 5385-5390/Mum/2025 respondent assessee, engaged in the business of plying of trucks, had 10 trucks ... from truck plying as business income and also part of the said business receipts from truck plying as unexplained deposits because it tantamount to double taxation. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is well reasoned and we do not find it fit to interfere with. Accordingly

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5389/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

business receipts as unexplained deposits under section 69A of the Act. It was contended that it was nothing but a case of double taxation. The ld. AR further submitted that the 13 ITA No. 5385-5390/Mum/2025 respondent assessee, engaged in the business of plying of trucks, had 10 trucks ... from truck plying as business income and also part of the said business receipts from truck plying as unexplained deposits because it tantamount to double taxation. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is well reasoned and we do not find it fit to interfere with. Accordingly

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5388/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

business receipts as unexplained deposits under section 69A of the Act. It was contended that it was nothing but a case of double taxation. The ld. AR further submitted that the 13 ITA No. 5385-5390/Mum/2025 respondent assessee, engaged in the business of plying of trucks, had 10 trucks ... from truck plying as business income and also part of the said business receipts from truck plying as unexplained deposits because it tantamount to double taxation. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is well reasoned and we do not find it fit to interfere with. Accordingly

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5387/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

business receipts as unexplained deposits under section 69A of the Act. It was contended that it was nothing but a case of double taxation. The ld. AR further submitted that the 13 ITA No. 5385-5390/Mum/2025 respondent assessee, engaged in the business of plying of trucks, had 10 trucks ... from truck plying as business income and also part of the said business receipts from truck plying as unexplained deposits because it tantamount to double taxation. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is well reasoned and we do not find it fit to interfere with. Accordingly

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5386/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

business receipts as unexplained deposits under section 69A of the Act. It was contended that it was nothing but a case of double taxation. The ld. AR further submitted that the 13 ITA No. 5385-5390/Mum/2025 respondent assessee, engaged in the business of plying of trucks, had 10 trucks ... from truck plying as business income and also part of the said business receipts from truck plying as unexplained deposits because it tantamount to double taxation. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is well reasoned and we do not find it fit to interfere with. Accordingly

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5385/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

business receipts as unexplained deposits under section 69A of the Act. It was contended that it was nothing but a case of double taxation. The ld. AR further submitted that the 13 ITA No. 5385-5390/Mum/2025 respondent assessee, engaged in the business of plying of trucks, had 10 trucks ... from truck plying as business income and also part of the said business receipts from truck plying as unexplained deposits because it tantamount to double taxation. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is well reasoned and we do not find it fit to interfere with. Accordingly

Metlife Global Operations Support Center Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 16(1), New Delhi

ITA 8750/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Metlife Global Operations Deputy Commissioner Of Income Support Centre Private Limited. Tax, Circle-16(1), Paharpur Business Centre, Vs C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, 21 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-1100019 Pan-Aafcm5000N Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By Shri Rajan Vohra, Adv. & Shri Lekh Mehta, Ca Respondent/Revenue By Shri Shrikant Namdeo, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026

Section 115Section 115OSection 143Section 143(3)

remittance of dividend to TDS @20.358% under section 115O. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per Article-10 of India Singapore Double Taxations Avoidance Agreement (in short ‘DTAA’), it is entitled for levy of TDS @10%. It was submitted that as per contemporaneous provisions of the taxation

Jsp Projects (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle - 13, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

ITA 3647/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 127(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 63Section 65B

that addition of Rs 8,95,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the impugned AY is unwarranted and double taxation of same funds; Addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not attracted 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... that addition of Rs 3,68,95,000/-u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the impugned AY is unwarranted and double taxation of same funds; Addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not attracted 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Jsp Projects (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle - 13, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

ITA 3646/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 127(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 63Section 65B

that addition of Rs 8,95,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the impugned AY is unwarranted and double taxation of same funds; Addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not attracted 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... that addition of Rs 3,68,95,000/-u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the impugned AY is unwarranted and double taxation of same funds; Addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not attracted 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Jsp Projects (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -13, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

ITA 3645/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 127(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 63Section 65B

that addition of Rs 8,95,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the impugned AY is unwarranted and double taxation of same funds; Addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not attracted 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... that addition of Rs 3,68,95,000/-u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the impugned AY is unwarranted and double taxation of same funds; Addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not attracted 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Jsp Projects (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle - 13, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

ITA 3644/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 127(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 63Section 65B

that addition of Rs 8,95,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the impugned AY is unwarranted and double taxation of same funds; Addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not attracted 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... that addition of Rs 3,68,95,000/-u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the impugned AY is unwarranted and double taxation of same funds; Addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not attracted 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Jsp Projects (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle - 13, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

ITA 3643/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 127(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 63Section 65B

that addition of Rs 8,95,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the impugned AY is unwarranted and double taxation of same funds; Addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not attracted 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... that addition of Rs 3,68,95,000/-u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the impugned AY is unwarranted and double taxation of same funds; Addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not attracted 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Amith Vishnav Gudimella, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1705/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1705/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Amith Vishnav The Income Tax Officer, Gudimella, Hyderabad. Ward-12(1), Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aghpv2565J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 91

learned authorities erred in not allowing relief either under Section 90 or Section 91 even though the appellant was eligible under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The denial is unjustified and contrary to the intent of the Act. 9. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the return processed ... Salaries” in his return of income and also claimed relief in respect of taxes paid in USA in accordance with the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [in short “DTAA”] between India and the United States of America. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has pointed out that