“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

Valuelabs LLP, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1609/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी. सं/Ita No.1609/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Valuelabs Llp, Hyderabad. Vs. Dcit, Pan: Aakfv2276K Central Circle-8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 06/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 13/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 27/09/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 23/11/2021. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250Section 80

Subsequently, the case of the assessee firm was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS for verification of certain issues, viz., (i) double taxation relief under sections 90/91 of the Act; (ii) foreign bank account; and (iii) deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A of the Act. 3. During

Mrigesh Gaurav, Bangalore vs. ITO Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7988/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)(ii)

provisions of section 5(2) of the Act and section 9(1)(ii) read with Article 16(1) of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). According to the ITA No. 7988/Mum/2025 Mrigesh Gaurav, Mumbai assessee, only the portion of salary relatable to services rendered in India was offered ... considering section 90 of the Act and also the ITA No. 7988/Mum/2025 Mrigesh Gaurav, Mumbai provisions of Article 16(1) of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) Ground No. 6: The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, withdraw all or any of the above Grounds

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle - 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2403/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

UEPR which has been disallowed as deduction in one year should not be taxed in the year of reversal, as it would lead to double taxation. Since the reversal would now happen in more than one year, the rule would have to be interpreted to mean that the said reversal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 2398/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 1450/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited (Tagic), Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department

ITA 1432/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

Sivasundar Selvakumari, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Balakrishnan, CIT

Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 194ISection 45

having been accepted and having attained a finality, the addition of LTCG in the hands of the Appellant does not arise and amounts to double taxation. 5. The CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that repayment of liabilities to clear the title is wholly and exclusively in connection with ... further submitted that taxing :-7-: ITA. No: 3154 /Chny/2025 the same income again in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation which is impermissible in law. 14. With regard to denial of deduction towards mortgage discharge, it was submitted that the mortgage existed prior to transfer

Somasundaram Vigneshwaran, Madurai vs. ACIT (Central Circle) -1, Mudarai, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1728/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy, S.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1728/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Somasundaram Vigneshwaran, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Meenakshi Kovil Street, Income Tax, Sri Meenakshi Complex, 1St Floor, Central Circle 1, Madurai 625 001. Madurai. [Pan: Akppv0081K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Adjournment Petition. On Examination Of The Record, It Is Noted That The Assessee Filed This Appeal On 14.06.2025 & After Scrutiny, The Registry, Itat Chennai Benches Issued Notice

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

with the balance Rs.2,74,19,095/- (i.e., Rs.2.94 Crores minus Rs. 19.80 lakhs) assessed substantively u/s 69A. Thus, the charge of double taxation does not hold good, 6.3.23 The provisions of section 69A of the Act empowers the AO to treat any unaccounted money or valuable asset found

A-One Leathers, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 4148/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4148/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. A-One Leathers, The Assistant Commissioner No.15/8, Vepery High Road, Vs. Of Income Tax, Periamet, Non-Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai – 600 003. Chennai. Pan: Aaafa 4576H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Anandh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 14.10.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Raised Read As Follows:- :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri S. Anandh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

return of income and suffered tax. If that being the scenario, the JAO shall not add the same as it tantamount to double taxation of the same income. The JAO shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before a decision is taken in the matter

Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT(A), Chennai

ITA 993/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

filed. Therefore, once the rental advance was offered to tax in subsequent years, then the addition on the same income will lead to double taxation which is incorrect and bad in law. Further, in support of the above the Id.AR relied upon the following case laws: • The decision held ... income of the subsequent assessment years. In these circumstances, bringing the very same amount to tax again in A.Y.2015- 16 would result in double taxation of the same income, which is impermissible in law. It is a settled principle that income which has already been subjected to tax cannot

Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT(A), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 992/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

filed. Therefore, once the rental advance was offered to tax in subsequent years, then the addition on the same income will lead to double taxation which is incorrect and bad in law. Further, in support of the above the ld.AR relied upon the following case laws: • The decision held ... income of the subsequent assessment years. In these circumstances, bringing the very same amount to tax again in A.Y.2015- 16 would result in double taxation of the same income, which is impermissible in law. It is a settled principle that income which has already been subjected to tax cannot

Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT(A), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

filed. Therefore, once the rental advance was offered to tax in subsequent years, then the addition on the same income will lead to double taxation which is incorrect and bad in law. Further, in support of the above the ld.AR relied upon the following case laws: • The decision held ... income of the subsequent assessment years. In these circumstances, bringing the very same amount to tax again in A.Y.2015- 16 would result in double taxation of the same income, which is impermissible in law. It is a settled principle that income which has already been subjected to tax cannot

ACIT, Chennai vs. Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 1644/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

ACIT, Chennai vs. Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 1639/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

Bhavin Mahendra Khatri, C-30, Ambaji Apartment Priyamohan Chs, Devidayalc vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautiliya Bhavan

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

ITA 7247/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () And

Section 133(6)

Assessing Officer added the Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025 entire amount. This has resulted in double taxation and a high-pitched assessment, contrary to principles of natural justice. Assessing Officer compared Form 26AS with the sales declared by the appellant and found ... bringing the same to tax again in A.Y. 2015-16 merely because the TDS was reflected in the latter year would lead to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. The issue in dispute is reconciliation of the receipt in respect of two parties shown by the assessee in assessment

Amit Satpathy, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5930/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailamit Satpathy, Flat No.404, Tower A, Imperial Heights, Oshirwara, Goregaon (West) ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400104 Pan: Arrps8419D V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Assistant Director Of Income Tax, …………….Respondent Central Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru - 560500

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 90(2)

Surat herein referred as "the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the appellant as Resident of India under Article 4(2) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United Kingdom (UK) ("DAA") and including the salary income earned in UK for the period upto 17 July ... allow credit for taxes paid in United Kingdom by the Appellant for AY 2017-18 as per the provisions of Article 24 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UK. 1.5 In the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Jainam Ornament Private Limited, Gaya vs. Income Tax Officer, Gaya

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Jainam Ornament Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Chowk, Gaya, Gaya, Gaya, Bihar Vs. Bihar-823001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcj2187M Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

Section 145(3)Section 68

profit and loss account and offered the income to tax. Therefore, if the addition is allowed to be sustained, it would result in double taxation of the same income. Moreover, notice issued to the 13 suppliers were duly responded except two meaning thereby that 11 parties have confirmed to have

Hemaben Babubhai Parekh, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(1), Mumbai

ITA 8549/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Sneha KothariFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 80G

correctly by accepting the reversal of donation expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- as business income and miscellaneous income of Rs.2,00,000/-resulting in double taxation. The assessee thereby prays that the same may be reduced from the income of the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case

Bobst Bielefeld Gmbh, Germany vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6030/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

interest thereon. 2. Ground No. 2 Taxing the income under wrong head of income and non- consideration of the beneficial provision of India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('the Treaty') On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred ... interest thereon. 2. Ground No. 2 Taxing the income under wrong head of income and non- consideration of the beneficial provision of India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('the Treaty') On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred

Bobst Bielefeld Gmbh, Germany vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6029/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 234ASection 270A