“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

M/S Meta Jewel Krafts, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 926/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmeta Jewel Krafts, Shop No. 115, Mall 21, C-17, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302 001 Pan No. Aajfm 5731D ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

same is out of the cash sales duly recorded in the books of accounts which has been offered for tax, thus resulting into double taxation. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the ground relating to taxing the alleged unexplained cash ... sales are credited to P/L A/c. Hence, taxing the cash deposit in the bank account which is out of such sales has resulted into double taxation which cannot be approved in view of the decision of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in case of DCIT Vs. Roop Fashion (2022)38NYPTTJ749 and other

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 495/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

SIGN attcity aferpenr, AYR =arals, TAGE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR So Va. Mateeth, =r

Ashok Nariyani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1532/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh.Deepak Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

independently submitted during assessment proceedings. Furthermore, the trading results of the assessee were neither rejected nor questioned. Hence, this ad-hoc addition results in double taxation, taxing the very profits already offered for taxation in the audited Profit & Loss Account through recorded cash sales. Once it is established and accepted

Shree Sati Saw Mill, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Siliguri

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1402/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 133(6)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69A

cash has been treated as sales no addition can be made u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained money as the same amounts to double taxation of the same income which is not permissible under the Act. Consequently, we set aside the order of Id. CIT (A) and direct

Venkataramaiah Kumar Kiran, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(2), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 889/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Balram R Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

also not doubted the same, taxing the same again under unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act will amount to double taxation. We are also of the opinion that the addition made by the AO are purely based on suspicions, conjectures and surmises and without any evidences to prove that

DCIT2(2)1, Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai vs. Rajendra G Parikh, Oriental Business Centre, Rajbahadur Mansion

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4370/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income V/S. Rajendra G. Parikh, Tax, Circle – 2(2)(1), Room No. बनाम Mumbai G.P.O., Mumbai 544, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. - 400 000, Maharashtra Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpp4545K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talathi, (Virtually Present)For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 143(3)

otherwise is under question, or ii. Appeals of International taxation charges where the dispute relates to the applicability of the provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement or otherwise m. Any other case or class of cases where in the opinion of the Board it is necessary to contest

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajendra G Parikh, Maharastra

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4328/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income V/S. Rajendra G. Parikh, 1St Tax, Circle – 2(2)(1), Room No. बनाम Floor, Yogesh Bhawan, 31, 544, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. N.S. Parkar Road, Mumbai Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 007, Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpp4545K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talathi, (Virtually Present)For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 143(3)

Factive Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation )-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4706/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal & Factive Limited Asst. Cit(It)-2(3)(1) C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Llp 609, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 252, Veer Savarkar Marg, C-41, C-43, G Block, Vs. Shivaji Park, Dadar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 028 Bandra (E), Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaccf 5745 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Dhanesh Bafna A/W Appellant By Shri Yogesh Malpani & Ms. Kinjal Patel Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. Drp' For Short) & Pertains To The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since The Substantive Issue On Merits, Arising In The Appeals Are More Or Less Common In Both The Appeals, We Propose To Take Up Ita No. 4706/Mum/2023, Pertaining To A.Y. 2021-22, As The Lead Appeal. (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) Factive Limited Vs. Asst. Cit(It) 3. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 Are Basically On Legal Issues, Challenging The Validity Of The Final Assessment Order. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Submitted That He Would Prefer To Address The Issues On Merits And, If Warranted, May Press The Legal Grounds.

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)

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

holding the sum of INR 8,17.59,532 as 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 13 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('the DTAA') entered into between India and UK. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... nature of royalty, both u/s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act and under Article 13(2) of India United Kingdom (‘UK’ for short) Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’ (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) Factive Limited vs. Asst. CIT(IT) for short). Whereas, the second issue relates to existence or otherwise

Nimmatoori Ramesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 597/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273BSection 4

addition of Rs.33,75,000/- in the assessment made and the levy of penalty for the same amount of Rs.33,75,000/- leads to double taxation. d. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the AO in the penalty order treated the amount of Rs.33 ... regard to the constitutional validity of the provisions of section 26955 of the 1.T Act 1961 but not with regard to the impugned double taxation. 5 ITA.Nos.594, 596 & 597 /Hyd./2025 10. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there

Late Nimmatoori Rajababu L/R by Anudeep Nimmatoori, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 596/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273BSection 4

Late Nimmatoori Raja Babu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 594/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

addition of Rs.33,75,000/- in the assessment made and the levy of penalty for the same amount of Rs.33,75,000/- leads to double taxation. d. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the AO in the penalty order treated the amount of Rs.33 ... regard to the constitutional validity of the provisions of section 26955 of the 1.T Act 1961 but not with regard to the impugned double taxation. 10. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there is a reasonable cause as referred

DCIT, Cen Cir 2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1252/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

DCIT, CC2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1251/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

Maya Devi, Manoharpur, Chaibasa vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 298/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296-298/Ran/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Maya Devi, Vs. Ito-Ward-2(1), Nandpur, Jharkhand-833104 Jamshedpur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. :Bgwpd 1450 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sumit Mittal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), All Dated 14.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ita No.296/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Assessment Made U/S.147 R.W.S.144 Of The Act. Ita No.297/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Penalty Order Passed In The Case Of The Assessee U/S.271Aac(1) Of The Act & Ita No.298/Ran/2024 Is Relating To The Penalty Order Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 3. Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures, Therefore, All The Three Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

twice in respect of the same property, such addition cannot be made in the hands of two separate assessee, as it would amount to double taxation on the same property. 7. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR supported the decisions of the AO and ld.CIT(A) but he could

Maya Devi, Manoharpur, Chaibasa vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 297/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Maya Devi, Manoharpur, Chaibasa vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 296/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Dhritiman Roy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 542/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 90

case. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) has failed to understand that the assessee is entitled to claim foreign tax credit as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') between India and the host jurisdiction even if a Form 67 is filed beyond the due date. 2.3 The learned ... liable to taxed in Denmark, the assessee claimed relief u/s 90 of the Act amounting to Rs.7,83,371/- on the income subjected to double taxation. The assessee also filed Form No.67 and supporting documents towards the claim of relief u/s 90 of the Act read with Rule

Muniyappa Muniraju, Bengaluru vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1119/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 263Section 44A

Revenue. He further submitted that if the arguments of the assessee is not accepted it would change the opinion and would amount to double taxation to the assessee on the same income which is contrary to the provisions of income tax law. 3. At the outset of hearing, we noticed ... included in his turnover. If the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT is accepted then in such case it would be double taxation on the receipts already disclosed by the assessee which does not permit. Accordingly, we hold that reassessment Order passed by the AO is not erroneous

Mahesh Rajaram Kukreja, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner, Vashi Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1977/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarmahesh Rajaram Kukreja, V/S. Office Of Assistant Commissioner A-1601, 02, 03, Sai Pride, Plot बनाम Of Income Tax, Circle – 28(2), No. 05, Sector 18, Sanpada, Mumbai, Thane – 400705, Navi Mumbai – 400705, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpk5085H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri (Sr.AR)

Section 143(3)

property who made payment to M/s Kushal biotech, being an assessee we have provided copy of his IT return, Tax audit report etc. and double taxation on same income is not in justice with assessee in eyes of law. We have submitted Audit report and copy of return ... fact and decision of appeal also given merely focus only on the non submission of the Assessee while it is clear from record that double taxation cannot be justified for one single income. 4. Witness of Sale deed should also be crossly examined for understanding the circumstances and fact

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Maharashtra

ITA 188/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 244ASection 44BSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)

ITA No. 187, 175& 188/DDN/2024 DCIT Vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH