← 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai vs. Khopoli Investments Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both Assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3846/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarkhopoli Investments V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle– 206, 1St Floor, Dalamal 4(1), 420, 4Th Floor,Kautilya House, J.B. Marg Nariman Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Point, Mumbai – 400 021, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack1740J Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Deputy Commissioner Of Income V/S. Khopoli Investments Tax, Central Circle–4(1), 420, बनाम Limited 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 206, 1St Floor, Dalamal Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block, House, J.B. Marg Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack1740J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee By : Shri Priyank Ghia,Ar Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- 1. The Above Captioned Appeal Ita No. 3789/Mum/2025 Is Preferred By The Assessee & Ita No. 3846/Mum/2025 Is Filed By P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Ghia,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessment year, the ld.CIT(A) rightly affirmed the addition but directed the AO to give equivalent relief in the AY 2022-23 to prevent double taxation of the impugned sum. We further find that the Revenue has not agitated this conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) nor the assessee. Accordingly

Khopoli Investments Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -4, Mumbai

In the result, both Assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3789/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarkhopoli Investments V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle– 206, 1St Floor, Dalamal 4(1), 420, 4Th Floor,Kautilya House, J.B. Marg Nariman Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Point, Mumbai – 400 021, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack1740J Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Deputy Commissioner Of Income V/S. Khopoli Investments Tax, Central Circle–4(1), 420, बनाम Limited 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 206, 1St Floor, Dalamal Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block, House, J.B. Marg Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack1740J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee By : Shri Priyank Ghia,Ar Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- 1. The Above Captioned Appeal Ita No. 3789/Mum/2025 Is Preferred By The Assessee & Ita No. 3846/Mum/2025 Is Filed By P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Ghia,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessment year, the ld.CIT(A) rightly affirmed the addition but directed the AO to give equivalent relief in the AY 2022-23 to prevent double taxation of the impugned sum. We further find that the Revenue has not agitated this conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) nor the assessee. Accordingly

Alok Kumar, Kanke Road vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 201/RAN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

contents of the sworn affidavit of the assessee's director and reason for delay as discussed supra as well as the issue of double taxation. Brought to my notice, the delay caused in filing of Appeal is condoned in the interest of justice. The appeal documents were prepared and handed

Alok Kumar, Kanke Road vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/RAN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

contents of the sworn affidavit of the assessee's director and reason for delay as discussed supra as well as the issue of double taxation. Brought to my notice, the delay caused in filing of Appeal is condoned in the interest of justice. The appeal documents were prepared and handed

Alok Kumar, Kanke Road vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/RAN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

contents of the sworn affidavit of the assessee's director and reason for delay as discussed supra as well as the issue of double taxation. Brought to my notice, the delay caused in filing of Appeal is condoned in the interest of justice. The appeal documents were prepared and handed

Alok Kumar, Kanke Road vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/RAN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

contents of the sworn affidavit of the assessee's director and reason for delay as discussed supra as well as the issue of double taxation. Brought to my notice, the delay caused in filing of Appeal is condoned in the interest of justice. The appeal documents were prepared and handed

Alok Kumar, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 185/RAN/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

contents of the sworn affidavit of the assessee's director and reason for delay as discussed supra as well as the issue of double taxation. Brought to my notice, the delay caused in filing of Appeal is condoned in the interest of justice. The appeal documents were prepared and handed

Gosrani Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3590/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhrigosrani Impex Private Vs. Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax(Appeals), Nfac, 1748, A/304, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Department Anjul Tower, Kamatghar 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Road, Opp Shatrunjay Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Mandir, Bhiwandi, 421302. Kalyan (W)-421301. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aadcg7638J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Varun Tiwari-CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR
Section 250Section 68

included in the Turnover of the Appellant and has been already offered to tax and sustaining the addition made by Ld.AO has resulted in double taxation of the same amount. 4.The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and vary any of the grounds of appeal either before ... reflected in the books of account, as part of total sales, therefore, making an addition again u/s. 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation. Reliance has also been placed on several judicial pronouncements in support of his arguments by Ld. AR. Specifically he relied on the decision

Sky High Xc Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1547/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(3)Section 234B

1549/Mum- 2025 Sky High II Leasing Company Limited ITA No. 1550/Mum- 2025 1. General Ground - General Ground on Benefits of India - Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 2. Applicability of Article 6 and 7 of Multilateral Instrument ('MLI') without separate notification

Sadikali Mohammedali Noorani, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1888/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhrisadikali Mohamedali Vs. Commissioner Of Noorani Income-Tax (Appeals) 1St Floor, Esplande Mansion, (Nafc) Delhi. 24/36, Near Session Court, Kala Ghoda, Mumbai- 00023. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aadpn9711C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Sahana M. Ladiawala-AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

shown by the son in his return as long term capital gains. Hence, taxing the same in assessee’s hands now would result in double taxation of the amount. Ld. AR has cited several decisions in support of his arguments including that of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., Canada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 666/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

maintenance services were performed in Canada and do not constitute technical services as per the provisions of the Act as well as India- Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 5. erred in making an addition of INR 2,42,65,46,501 by treating total income received from repair ... DCIT plan or technical design, the same did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') as per the provisions of India-Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 11. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer also noticed that the assessee had also received from India Flysafe

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., Canada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 665/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

maintenance services were performed in Canada and do not constitute technical services as per the provisions of the Act as well as India- Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 5. erred in making an addition of INR 2,42,65,46,501 by treating total income received from repair ... DCIT plan or technical design, the same did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') as per the provisions of India-Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 11. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer also noticed that the assessee had also received from India Flysafe

Pratt & Whitney Canada (Sea) Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 626/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

maintenance services were performed in Canada and do not constitute technical services as per the provisions of the Act as well as India- Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 5. erred in making an addition of INR 2,42,65,46,501 by treating total income received from repair ... DCIT plan or technical design, the same did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') as per the provisions of India-Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 11. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer also noticed that the assessee had also received from India Flysafe

Pratt & Whitney Canada (Sea) Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 620/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

maintenance services were performed in Canada and do not constitute technical services as per the provisions of the Act as well as India- Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 5. erred in making an addition of INR 2,42,65,46,501 by treating total income received from repair ... DCIT plan or technical design, the same did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') as per the provisions of India-Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 11. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer also noticed that the assessee had also received from India Flysafe

Lummus Technology Heat Transfer B.V, Gurugram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax, Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.3741/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2021-22) Lummus Technology Heat Transfer B.V, Second Floor, Infinity Tower B, Dlf Cyber City, Sector 25A, Phase Ii, Gurugram, Haryana 122001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabca-9045-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurugram, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Haryana 122001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate, Ms. Reema Grewal, Chartered Accountant & Ms. Snigdha Gautam, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 06/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.10.2023, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 2. The Gist Of Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Assailing The Assessment Order Is As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80G

liable to tax with reference to Article 7 read with paragraph No.4 of Article 11 or paragraph no.2 of Article 11 of Indo- Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement?” The Special Bench answered the question as under:- “11.4 Thus, we are again left with the fundamental question as to whether

Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Limited, Gandhinagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad - 3, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1275/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 43(1)

bearing on the taxable income of A.Y. 2020-21. It was submitted that making any addition in the impugned year would amount to double taxation of income that has already been recognised and offered in preceding years. The assessee further submitted that under section 43(1) read with Explanation

Rajesh Balvantrai Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1160/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah, andFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

same income in earlier years like A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21. Any such allocation across years would result in impermissible double taxation. ITA No.1157 to 1160/Ahd/2025 19 3.10 The AR further submitted that the on-money component alleged by the learned PCIT could not be brought ... same allegation to tax again in earlier years, on the same record and without independent corroboration of year- wise cash receipt, would lead to double taxation and would not be in accordance with law. 7.7 On the jurisdiction under section 263, once it is seen that the Assessing Officer issued

Rajesh Balvantrai Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1159/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah, andFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

same income in earlier years like A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21. Any such allocation across years would result in impermissible double taxation. ITA No.1157 to 1160/Ahd/2025 19 3.10 The AR further submitted that the on-money component alleged by the learned PCIT could not be brought ... same allegation to tax again in earlier years, on the same record and without independent corroboration of year- wise cash receipt, would lead to double taxation and would not be in accordance with law. 7.7 On the jurisdiction under section 263, once it is seen that the Assessing Officer issued

Rajesh Balvantrai Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1158/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

same income in earlier years like A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21. Any such allocation across years would result in impermissible double taxation. ITA No.1157 to 1160/Ahd/2025 19 3.10 The AR further submitted that the on-money component alleged by the learned PCIT could not be brought ... same allegation to tax again in earlier years, on the same record and without independent corroboration of year- wise cash receipt, would lead to double taxation and would not be in accordance with law. 7.7 On the jurisdiction under section 263, once it is seen that the Assessing Officer issued

Rajesh Balvantrai Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1157/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

same income in earlier years like A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21. Any such allocation across years would result in impermissible double taxation. ITA No.1157 to 1160/Ahd/2025 19 3.10 The AR further submitted that the on-money component alleged by the learned PCIT could not be brought ... same allegation to tax again in earlier years, on the same record and without independent corroboration of year- wise cash receipt, would lead to double taxation and would not be in accordance with law. 7.7 On the jurisdiction under section 263, once it is seen that the Assessing Officer issued