← 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

Naval Kishor Mundra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for

ITA 4200/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69

rather it has earned profit from option trading and same has been offered for taxation. Thus, reopening is invalid as it is leading to double taxation. Ground 6.On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 6 the Ld. CIT(A)erred in not quashing the penalty proceeding Rs.0 ... trading, rather ithas earned profit from option trading and same has been offered for taxation. Thus, reopening is invalid as it is leading to double taxation. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. AO erred in invoking penalty provision under section

Paltex, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 1301/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Paltex, Ito, Ward – 24(3)(1), Plot No.41, Pal House, Vs Piramal Chambers, Marol Co-Operative Society, Lalbaug, Lower Parel, Andherei Kural Road, Mumbai-400012 Andheri (East),Mumbai-400059. [Pan No. Aaafp 1973 F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 57Section 68Section 71

interest amount is disallowed in the hands of the firm, necessary downward adjustment must be made in the hands of partner, to avoid the double taxation. Thus, allowability of interest in the hands of firm is tax neutral or results into marginal tax. Hence the disallowance

ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi vs. Subramaniam Hariharan, New Delhi

ITA 600/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Tanya Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Subramaniam Hariharan, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

ITA 9832/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Anand and Anand, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 37, New Delhi

ITA 2134/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Page 91 to 93 to support his contention. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/­ in patiently wrong, tantamount to double taxation and deserves to be deleted. We noticed that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO examined the books of account and she has not rejected

M/S Gvk Jaipur Expressway Private Limited, Telangana vs. PCIT 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

total income in preceding year and was reverted in the books in the year under consideration and reduced from total income to avoid double taxation. Ld. PCIT (Admin) has failed to appreciate the same thus the direction of ld. PCIT for revision of order on this issue deserves

Rajeev Dua Prop M/S Ram Milap Hosiery, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.”

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 148Section 68

where the cash sales duly offered to tax have been accepted, bringing the realization of sale proceeds in cash to tax will amount to double taxation and the same is clearly unsustainable in law and cannot be upheld. In view of the same, we find the explanation of the assessee ... Where such cash sales duly offered to tax has been accepted by the AO, bringing the sale realization to tax will amount to double taxation and same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The decision of the Coordinate Bench also supports the case of the assessee. In light

Arihant Enterprise, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 590/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

that no addition can be made u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of sales already offered to tax, otherwise it will lead to double taxation. Reliance was placed on the following: a. ITO v. Ankit Gold Ltd. - ITA No. 429/Ahd/2024 b. ACIT v. Radhika Jewellers - ITA 201/Ahd/2023; c. DCIT

Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT/DCIT, International Taxation-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 366/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.366/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 V. Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of #25-60, Tong Eng Building, 101, Cecil Income Tax, International Street, Singapore 069533. Taxation, Dcit, Intl. Tax 1(2), C/O. Bothra Shipping Services Private Chennai. Limited, Vasundhara, 9Th Floor, Unit-A, 2/7 Sarat Bose Road, L.R. Sarani S.O., Kalkata, West Bengal 700 020. [Pan: Aadcj0165F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 44B

goods as per the agree time slot. The assessee claimed the income earned as exempt by virtue of Article 8 of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The assessee filed detailed written submissions before the TPO and placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case ... assuming without conceding that the preamble should be referred to understand the object and purpose, the stated objective of the treaty is "avoidance of double taxation". This object can be achieved in two ways, which one way by credit mechanism when both the countries tax the same income

Rubicon Research Limited (Formerly Known As Rubicon Research Private Limited), Thane, Maharashtra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6647/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6647/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubicon Research V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly बिधम Income Tax- Circle Known As Rubicon 15(3)(1), Mumbai Research Private Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Limited) Karve Road, New Marine Medone House, B-75, Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai Road No. 33, Wagle 400020 Estate, Thane 400604. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1422M Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri. Asif Karmali (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 234BSection 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

sustainable. II. That the R&D and Other Support Services Are Already Included in the Cost Base under TNMM: Separate Adjustment Leads to Double Taxation 1. The Assessee adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method ("MAM") for benchmarking its international transactions. The international transactions included ... fees without removing the same from the com base of TNMM. the TPO has effectively double-counted the same expense which leads to economic double taxation - a result that defeats the purpose of transfer pricing regulations. 6. Therefore, the entire adjustment is flawed and must be deleted in full

Kuldeep Singh, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 187/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

notice under section 148 which has been considered by the AO, therefore bringing such interest income to tax again will clearly result in double taxation which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore the addition of interest income is also directed to be deleted. 13. In the result

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal

ITA 4461/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 High Volt Electricals P. Ltd., Ito Ward 1, J,46, Midc Tarapur, Boisar, S.O. Mqp8+5Q3, Amba Wadi, Salwad, Boisar-401 506. Vs. Palghar-401 404. Pan No. Aabfh 1723 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek JainFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 147Section 148

account would result in double separate addition on the same account would result in double separate addition on the same account would result in double taxation, which the law does not countenance. taxation, which the law does not countenance. Accordingly, the Accordingly, the additions

Devngi Jewellwers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 672/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Mmber आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Devngi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 109 -110, Shreyas Diamond Centre, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd3227A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

cash in books of accounts as an income and addition once again u/s.68 of the IT Act on the same amount would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject ... already offered sales realization and such income is accepted by the AO, addition of the same amount once again u/s 68 would tantamount to double taxation of same income. The ld. AR relied on the decision in case of R S Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 145 taxmann.com

Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

treated as sales and secondly the same was treated as unexplained cash credit/money under section 68 of the Act. This clearly tantamount to double taxation of income, which is impermissible in law. It is submitted that section 68 could not be applied in relation to the sales receipt shown ... Officer to be the income of the assessee, addition of the same amount once again under section 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. In view of the above situation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s order”. (viii

Manmohan Pravinchandra Madani, Ahmedabad vs. The Itio, Ward-3(2)(10), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1173/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69A

when cash sales have already been treated as income, any separate addition on account of cash deposits of the same amount would amount to double taxation. In this case, too, the sales are recorded in the trading account and accepted as income; thus, re-characterizing the cash component of such ... held that when the Assessing Officer has already accepted the sales realization as income, a further addition under section 68 would result in double taxation and hence cannot be sustained. This ratio squarely applies to the present case, where the Assessing Officer has not disturbed the sales but still proceeded

Givaudan (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru, Bangalore

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

ITA 1183/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Motwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)

written off had already been offered to tax in the return of income. . Page 3 of 5 Therefore, any further adjustment would result in double taxation. The learned AR drew attention to page 34 and 17 of the paper books to support his claim. 7. The learned AR also fairly

Tfdac Ireland II Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 4(1)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1198/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

treaty benefits; (d) The true characterisation and taxability of lease rentals and supplementary lease rentals; (e) Applicability of Article 8 of the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”); (f) Existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B ... asserting: (i) that the lease rentals from the dry operating leases did not constitute “royalty” within Article 12(3)(a) of the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), which expressly excludes payments for the use of aircraft; (ii) that, in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India

Dae(Sy22) Leasing (Ireland)41, Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1157/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

treaty benefits; (d) The true characterisation and taxability of lease rentals and supplementary lease rentals; (e) Applicability of Article 8 of the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”); (f) Existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B ... asserting: (i) that the lease rentals from the dry operating leases did not constitute “royalty” within Article 12(3)(a) of the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), which expressly excludes payments for the use of aircraft; (ii) that, in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India

Dae (Sabs) Leasing Ireland 43 Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax.Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

ITA 1156/MUM/2025[2022-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-22
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

treaty benefits; (d) The true characterisation and taxability of lease rentals and supplementary lease rentals; (e) Applicability of Article 8 of the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”); (f) Existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B ... asserting: (i) that the lease rentals from the dry operating leases did not constitute “royalty” within Article 12(3)(a) of the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), which expressly excludes payments for the use of aircraft; (ii) that, in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India