“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

Prakash H. Mutha, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1, Thane

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the

ITA 5982/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 127Section 145(3)Section 153A

sales have already been brought to tax by applying the gross profit margin method, any further addition in respect thereof would tantamount to double taxation. 10. 2. The Ld.DR on the contrary relied on the order passed by authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides

M/S Enea Software Inc., India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] M/S Enea Software Inc. Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Openwave Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax Inc.), 1St Floor, Vs 2(2)(2), Civic Centre, Mobility Quattro Iconic Plot No. 273, Minto Road, Udyog Vihar, Phase 2, New Delhi. Gurugram, Haryana-122015 Pan- Aabco7261M Assessee Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C

Apex Court) wherein it has been settled that consideration for supply of copyrighted article does not tantamount to Royalty under the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA') 5. That both the Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP have erred on facts and in law, in concluding the software ... resident of USA and a non-resident for the purposes of Act in India it is entitled to the beneficial provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA ("India-USA DTAA"). On 20.02.2017 the assessee entered into a Software Licensing Agreement with Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. ("RJIL/Reliance/Jio

Sky High Xcv Leasing Company Limited, State Outside India vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle 3(1)(2), Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Madhur Agarwal, Harsh R. Shah & PFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 90(1)

Companies as Lessees for leasing of aircrafts - Whether Operating lease or Financial lease?; (ii) Applicability of Multilateral Instruments (MLI) vis a vis India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA); (iii) Whether the assesses/appellants are eligible for benefit of Article 8 of India-Ireland DTAA?; & (AY 2022-23) (iv) Whether

Sky High Xxii Leasing Company Limited, State Outside India vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Tax) Circle 3(1)(2), Delhi

ITA 1483/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Madhur Agarwal, Harsh R. Shah & PFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 90(1)

Kapil Marlecha, Pali vs. ITO, Ward-3, Pali

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 248/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

peak balance should be considered unexplained, and not the entire turnover of deposits. The addition of the entire deposits without considering withdrawals results in double taxation of the same money. 9.3 In the present case, while the assessee has failed to substantiate the full source of deposits, it would

Rajvee Exports, Surat vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Surat

In the result, we find no infirmity in the impugned order

ITA 520/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Rajvee Exports, Dcit, Central Circle 3, 400, Shri Godiji Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Devidas Pipla Road, Vs. Surat-395001. Mahidharpura, S.O. Surat-395003. Pan No. Aagfr 1008 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

proposal C. The assessee's argument that any addition as per the proposal given by this office under section 263, will lead to double taxation given by this office under section 263, will lead to double taxation given by this office under section 263, will lead to double taxation because

ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1306/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1306/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Ito Maheshwari Sales Corporation बनाम/ Ward-4(2)(3) C-111, Ganesh Meridin V/S. Ahmedabad Nr.Sola Bridge, Sola Ahmedabad-380 058 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aalfm 4917 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 11/04/2025, Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Ito Vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 68

already been recorded in the books and offered to tax, no separate addition under section 68 could be made as it would amount to double taxation of the same income, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., Tax Appeal ... income has been offered to tax accordingly, the same cannot be added again under section 68 of the Act, as it would result in double taxation of the same income. In the present case, the sales in question have been duly recorded in the books of the assessee and offered

Bundy India Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, Ground Number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1403/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1403/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Bundy India Limited The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Plot No.2, Circle-1(1) V/S. Gidc Industrial Estate, Baroda Makarpura Vadodaria - 390 010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacb 3039 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shree Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shree Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(3)

assessee with its UK Associated Enterprises had been resolved through the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under Article 27 of the India–UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, and the Competent Authorities of both countries had agreed upon a margin of 18% on operating cost, the same benchmark could, in principle ... resolution dated 18 August 2016, entered into between the Competent Authorities of India and the United Kingdom under Article 27 of the India–UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. As per the said MAP resolution, 70% of the management fees paid to the UK AE were accepted

ACIT(It)-1(2)(2), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Bcd Travel Asia Pacific Pte Limited, Singapore

ITA 4704/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 9(1)(vi)

erred in holding that such amount is not royalty within the meaning of clause 3(a) of Article 12 of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), ignoring the fact that the services rendered involve information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. 3. On the facts ... scientific experience.” However, these deeming 12 ITA No.4572/Mum/2025 and others BCD Travel Asia Pacific Pte Limited fictions are subject to the provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, and where the DTAA provisions are more beneficial, they prevail by virtue of section 90(2). 20. Article

DCIT 42 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Devleela Developers, Mumbai

In the result present appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2097/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawaldcit – 42(1)(1) Vs. Devleela Developers Room No. 732, Kautilya 604-605, Aravalli Bhavan Bkc (E), Mumbai – Business Centre, 400051. Ramdas Sutrale Marg, Borivali (W) Pan/Gir No. Aacfd5181B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 250

assessee. Since the same amount has been declared in the subsequent year by the assessee therefore the addition made by the AO tantamount to double taxation. 9 Devleela Developers, Mumbai. 9. We also noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the entire facts in detail and passed well reasoned order ... Devleela Developers, Mumbai. amounts have been declared in the sales in subsequent years by the appellant, the addition made by the AO tantamount to double taxation. In this regard the appellant has submitted as under: "Ld AO Presumed and addition made as provisional Sales was not being treated as income

Aka Ausfuhrkredit-Gesellschaft Mbh, Outside India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Int Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1766/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Processing Fee) on ECB Loan Guaranteed by Harmes Deckung Germany to the assessee and had claimed relief as per Article 11 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany. According to the AO, as per the information placed on record, the management fee/processing fee was in the nature ... provide our Indian customers with a German Tax Residence Certificate every year to enjoy the advantages of the Treaty for the Avoidance of Double Taxation from 19th December 1996 between the Republic of India and the Federal Republic of Germany You asked us to provide your esteemed authority with