“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

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 724/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Airport Holdings (UK) Ltd (Alpha), the payment made by the appellant to Alpha is taxable in India as per the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation entered into between India and UK. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 723/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

ITA 722/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, САFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 721/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

ITA 720/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Rajnibhai Bhogilal Desai, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Nadiad

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

ITA 533/AHD/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

some cases, amounts already considered elsewhere have been taxed again, I.T.A No. 533/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2002-03 7 Rajnibhai Bhogilal Desai vs. ITO resulting in double taxation. It was further submitted that the appellant was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the person from whose premises the material was seized

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kolar Paper Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1978/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.1978/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Dy. Commissioner Of V/S. M/S. Kolar Paper Mills Income Tax, Circle बिाम Ltd. 2(1)(1), Mumbai A 404, Twin Tower Chs Ltd, Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, Lokhandwala, 2Nd Cross Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Near, Apna Ghar Andheri Road, Mumbai 400020 West, Mumbai 400053 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck8381N Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ashok Majetia, Ca Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: 26.08.2025 स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 23.12.2024 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Majetia, CAFor Respondent: 26.08.2025

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 69ASection 69CSection 80G

deduction from taxable income and they had not claimed the said amount u/s, 80G as deduction. The amount added by assessee effect in double taxation in support of donation made, the appellant company has submitted copy of computation of income, bank statement which shows

Ocl India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4068/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.4068/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Dalmia Bharat Ltd., (Successor In The Interest Of Ocl India Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabco-8750-F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(1), C R Building New Delhi 110095 आअसं.3767/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Uditnagar, Rourkela, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha 769012 बनाम Vs. Dalmia Bharat Ltd., Successor Of Ocl India Ltd., 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabco-8750-F

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Shah, Navin Verma &For Respondent: Shri Amaninder Singh Dhindsa &

Section 43(5)Section 43ASection 53A

impugned assessment year the foreign exchange fluctuation gains are held to be on Revenue account this would result in double taxation on same amount. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that any gain arising on cancellation of forward contract entered into in relation to purchase of capital asset shall

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ocl India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Shah, Navin Verma &For Respondent: Shri Amaninder Singh Dhindsa &

Section 43(5)Section 43ASection 53A

Gajanand Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Antriksh Barter Pvt. Ltd. However, the additions were again made by the Assessing Officer on a protective basis which tantamount to double taxation on the same income. It is a trite law that protective assessment has to be passed simultaneously where there is a doubt as to the hands

Sukhminder Singh, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 278/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singhla, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

accounts of the assessee, the same has already been included in his return of income, therefore, any addition on this account will result in double taxation, which is not permitted in law. 5. That the Ld. CII(A) has wrongly enhanced addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer

Sharada Electors Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-3, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

accrual / arousal at an earlier stage, and as such, remains already taxed. Appellant contends that, learned PCIT, 3 Pune is proceeding to a plausible double taxation. 9. Learned PCIT-3, Pune erred in law in setting aside the issue of alleged absence of source of income for extending advances ... invoice is raised. It was also submitted that since the income has already been recognized on the basis of accrual, it will tantamount to double taxation if the income is again recognized on the basis of generation of invoice. Ld. AO has accepted this contention and therefore since detailed enquiry

ACIT, CC - 3(4), Kolkata vs. Rameswara Infrastructures Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and 11

ITA 2692/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata.….……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Rameswara Infrastructures Ltd ………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 19A, Sarat Bose Road Lr Sarani Kolkata-20. [Pan: Aaecr0505J] C.O. 19/Kol/2025 (In Ita Nos.2692 /Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rameswara Infrastructures Ltd.….……………. ….……….……….……Cross-Objector 19A, Sarat Bose Road Lr Sarani Kolkata-20. [Pan: Aaecr0505J] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata...………………………...…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 22, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 68

therefore in adding the amount of loan received during the FY: 2018-19 in respect of M/s Murmuria Promoters Pvt Ltd is leading to double taxation as ultimately the outstanding balance in respect of these loans as on 31.03.2020 has been offered to tax by the appellant. It is also

Prakash Raman, Vadodara vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward 2 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 1115/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1115/2025 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Prakash Raman, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pent House No.602, 6Th Floor, (International Taxation), Pincode@55, Vasant Vihar Road, Ward-2(1), Tp-1, Opp. To Darshanam Chennai. Splendora, Bhayli, Vadodara, Gujarat-391 410. [Pan:Aappp0380F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, C.A (Virtual). प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mrs. R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr.Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Mrs. R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 234BSection 5Section 90

instance of the revenue. The Tribunal in its order relying on articles 18(3) and 18(5) of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation of income entered into between the Government of India and Government of Malaysia, has held that the pension received was not taxable in India, since ... Malaysia, which was the contracting State. There will be no question of its inviting the taxation in India, which would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal has pointed out that the University of Malaysia is a statutory authority and as such, would fall within the term ‘Government’ and, therefore

Speciality Papers Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4917/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Speciality Papers Ltd., Dcit-4(3)(1), Ground Floor, 93 Dadiseth, Aayakar Bhavan, Agairy Lane, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aaecs 0861 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

making addition of the said sales again in the year in which cash is received and received and deposited in bank account amounts to double taxation deposited in bank account amounts to double taxation in in in the the the hands hands hands of appellant of appellant of appellant which

Isat Africa Limited Fzc, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the final assessment order passed by AO is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms

ITA 832/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanisat Africa Limited Fzc Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Office No. 5 Pre-Fab, C Phase Ii, Of Income Tax Fujairah Free Zone Fujairah, Dubai, International Tax Circle- United Arab Emirates, Dubai - 2(2)(2) 999999 Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan – Aagci8661Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 201Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

thatISAT Africa Ltd FZCis a tax resident of UAE and is duly entitled to be governed in accordance with the provisions of the IndiaUAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') in the present context in respect of its income earned from BTGC. ISAT does not have any Permanent Establishment

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 2259/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

from Indian entities. The Indian AE withheld tax at the source 10% of the payment made to the assessee as per the provisions of double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA). The assessee used TNMM as most appropriate method in order to compute its margin. It was also submitted that, the Indian ... perusal of the above referred orders it is noted that this Tribunal has considered the taxablity of FTS on receipt basis as per double taxation avoidance agreement between India and Germany and has observed and held as under: “78.The assessee is a non-resident Company, incorporated in Germany, having taxable

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 1615/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Akshay Automobiles Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4309/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Akshay Automobiles 129, Aayakar Bhavan, Private Limited, Mumbai-400020. Vs. 1, 2 William Compound, 33 Marve Road, Mith Chowke, Malad (East), Mumbai-400064. Pan : Aafca3582P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 18-04-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Wherein The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

under the head "profits & gains from business or profession". Therefore, adding the same sum again as unexplained cash credit would tantamount to double taxation. 6.6 Since the cash sales are found to have been duly recorded in the Books of the appellant, the addition of cash deposits in the bank ... unexplained by the AO is not justified. It would be tantamount to double taxation. The AO is therefore directed to delete the addition of Rs. 34,56,000/-.” 7. Against the said findings, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. During the course of hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that

Nahta Prakash Chand Through Legal Heir Vachan Kumar Nahata, Seoni vs. Assessing Officer, Seoni

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri PC Bardia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 44ASection 69A

business taxable income of Rs.727308/- (14.89%) on total sales of Rs. 48,83,652/- the CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming NO DOUBLE TAXATION of the further addition made for Rs. 12 lakh u/s 69A. 3) That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the return ... Therefore, as the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- was above the turnover offered by the appellant, there is no question of the double taxation and accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed.” From the above finding, it is clear that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely stated that there