← 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

Sehgal Path Lab, Andheri West vs. ITO, Circle 17(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4830/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhrisehgal Path Lab Vs. Ito, Circle 17(1) 103, Yashodhan It Sehgal Circle 17(1), Path Lab, Azad Nagar, S.O, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400053. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Abxfs0461M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed –CA &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

source of cash deposit stands explained by the books of accounts wherein, all cash receipts from patients are duly recorded, thereby resulting in double taxation of the same amount. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition ... must be credible and not just apparent from books. 5.5. The appellant argues that taxing the cash deposits under section 68 would result in double taxation since the receipts are already offered to tax as business Income. However, this argument holds only if the receipts are proven to be genuine

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Khimani Watch Company Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in full, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3809/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 145Section 147Section 69A

deposits in the bank account are nothing but proceeds of genuine sales already disclosed in the books. To hold otherwise would be to countenance double taxation and to penalise an assessee merely on the basis of suspicion. The entire addition stands deleted. 17. In the result, the appeal

Khimani Watch Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in full, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3552/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 145Section 147Section 69A

deposits in the bank account are nothing but proceeds of genuine sales already disclosed in the books. To hold otherwise would be to countenance double taxation and to penalise an assessee merely on the basis of suspicion. The entire addition stands deleted. 17. In the result, the appeal

Solvay S A, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2071/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

group entities in India would qualify as fees for technical services (‘FTS' for short) under Article 12(3)(b) of India-Belgium Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA' for short) as also u/s.9(1)(vii) of the Act. 3. Briefly, the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee

Relationship Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2067/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Relationship Properties Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), 41-44, Sp Centre, Minoo V Mumbai Desai Marg, Colaba, S Mumbai – 400005. Pan/Gir No. Aadcr8947D (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rushav PatawariFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

offered the same to tax in AY 2018-19 and thus any addition to its income in AY 2017-18 will result in double taxation of the same income.” 3. Brief facts: The assessee is engaged in the real estate development, entered into a Development Agreement (‘The Agreement’) dated 28th ... POCM, had already offered by the assessee in subsequent AY 2018-19, if the same is sustain in AY 2017-18, it would be double taxation of the same income. With such submissions Ld. AR furnished before us the working of revenue recognition by the assessee

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4634/MUM/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Farrokh V. Irani, Adv. &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 44

depreciation under section 32 has held that the such literal interpretation of section 44 read with Rule 5 would result in unjust result of double taxation and that the provisions need to be given a purposive interpretation to avoid any absurd and unjust result which would not be the legislative ... Tribunal took a different view from the view taken in assessee's case for the reason that the said view would result in double taxation. Accordingly, the claim made by the assessee under the bonafide belief that it is lawfully entailed to a claim on payment basis and the adjustment

J K Patel & Co, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5071/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. D/R) (virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

once added in the original assessment vide Order dated 19-12-2018. This has resulted in subjecting the sum of Rs.12,29,435/- to double taxation. 8. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing

Rajeev Ranjan, Patna Bihar vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, Bihar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/PAT/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.150/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajeev Ranjan..…………………..………. …………………....Appellant Saket Puri New Kunj Colony, Bazar Samiti, Patna, Bihar- 800016.. [Pan: Alfpr5222F] Vs. Acit, Patna………..…....…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Tripurari Kumar, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 21, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Directed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.01.2025 Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At ₹1,46,89,000 As Against The Income Of ₹99,90,000 Declared In The Return Of Income. The Assessing Officer Made An Addition Of ₹46,99,000 Under Section 69A Of The Act, Treating It As Unexplained Cash Deposits.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

which included the alleged cash deposits in question. It was argued that making a separate addition of the same amount results in double taxation of the same income. 5. It was further submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without examining this crucial factual aspect and without adjudicating

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

order for A.Y. 2014-15 by DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, and therefore any further addition in her case would result in duplication and double taxation. 5. After considering the submissions, the Assessing Officer noted that while the substantive addition of ₹7,32,68,860/- had been made

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

order for A.Y. 2014-15 by DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, and therefore any further addition in her case would result in duplication and double taxation. 5. After considering the submissions, the Assessing Officer noted that while the substantive addition of ₹7,32,68,860/- had been made

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 705/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

order for A.Y. 2014-15 by DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, and therefore any further addition in her case would result in duplication and double taxation. 5. After considering the submissions, the Assessing Officer noted that while the substantive addition of ₹7,32,68,860/- had been made

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3936/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

upon by the Assessing Officer were entirely subsumed within the diary notings, and therefore, any addition based on them would result in duplication and double taxation. 13. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, allowed following reliefs:- (i) Relief of Rs.1,00,18,000 on account of errors in the entries ... accepted the receipts to belong to the assessee and no valid documents and reconciliation for claiming the relief citing the same to be double taxation had been filed; 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3928/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

upon by the Assessing Officer were entirely subsumed within the diary notings, and therefore, any addition based on them would result in duplication and double taxation. 13. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, allowed following reliefs:- (i) Relief of Rs.1,00,18,000 on account of errors in the entries ... accepted the receipts to belong to the assessee and no valid documents and reconciliation for claiming the relief citing the same to be double taxation had been filed; 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3228/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others within the diary notings, and therefore, any addition based on them would result in duplication and double taxation. 13. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, allowed following reliefs:- (i) Relief of Rs.1,00,18,000 on account of errors in the entries ... accepted the receipts to belong to the assessee and no valid documents and reconciliation for claiming the relief citing the same to be double taxation had been filed; 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3227/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others within the diary notings, and therefore, any addition based on them would result in duplication and double taxation. 13. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, allowed following reliefs:- (i) Relief of Rs.1,00,18,000 on account of errors in the entries ... accepted the receipts to belong to the assessee and no valid documents and reconciliation for claiming the relief citing the same to be double taxation had been filed; 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3225/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others within the diary notings, and therefore, any addition based on them would result in duplication and double taxation. 13. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, allowed following reliefs:- (i) Relief of Rs.1,00,18,000 on account of errors in the entries ... accepted the receipts to belong to the assessee and no valid documents and reconciliation for claiming the relief citing the same to be double taxation had been filed; 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3224/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others within the diary notings, and therefore, any addition based on them would result in duplication and double taxation. 13. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, allowed following reliefs:- (i) Relief of Rs.1,00,18,000 on account of errors in the entries ... accepted the receipts to belong to the assessee and no valid documents and reconciliation for claiming the relief citing the same to be double taxation had been filed; 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3223/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others within the diary notings, and therefore, any addition based on them would result in duplication and double taxation. 13. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, allowed following reliefs:- (i) Relief of Rs.1,00,18,000 on account of errors in the entries ... accepted the receipts to belong to the assessee and no valid documents and reconciliation for claiming the relief citing the same to be double taxation had been filed; 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

upon by the Assessing Officer were entirely subsumed within the diary notings, and therefore, any addition based on them would result in duplication and double taxation. 13. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, allowed following reliefs:- (i) Relief of Rs.1,00,18,000 on account of errors in the entries ... accepted the receipts to belong to the assessee and no valid documents and reconciliation for claiming the relief citing the same to be double taxation had been filed; 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

DCIT Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3087/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

upon by the Assessing Officer were entirely subsumed within the diary notings, and therefore, any addition based on them would result in duplication and double taxation. 13. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, allowed following reliefs:- (i) Relief of Rs.1,00,18,000 on account of errors in the entries ... accepted the receipts to belong to the assessee and no valid documents and reconciliation for claiming the relief citing the same to be double taxation had been filed; 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition