“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

Dae (Sabs) 10296 Ireland Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation), Cirlce 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

ITA 1155/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

Sky High Xliii Leasing Company Limited, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4 (2) (1) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1122/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023

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

Ortus Aircraft Lease 5( Dublin) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2) International Taxation, Mumbai

ITA 1108/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Sunflower Aircraft Leasing Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2)(2) International Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1107/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

InterGlobe Aviation Limited (“IndiGo”). While the assessee asserts that such income is either (i) taxable solely in Ireland under Article 7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Ireland (“India-Ireland DTAA”) owing to the absence of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; or (ii) in the alternative

Ortus Aircraft Lease 6(Dublin) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2) International Taxation, Mumbai

ITA 1106/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)

Council of Architecture, New Delhi vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-1(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-

ITA 955/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

consideration. As rightly pointed out by the ld AR, this would completely disturb the financial structure of the assessee and would indeed result in double taxation. The assessee has been consistently offering 1/40th of the life membership fee as its revenue hence, effectively only is a question of timing difference

Council of Architecture, New Delhi vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-1(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-

ITA 952/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3756/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Yr.: 2006-07

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 44CSection 90

four questions which were proposed are concerned. 5. Before us, there is no dispute that it would be the provisions of the India- US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement which would govern and, according to the appellants, be liable to be read as supportive of its challenge on the issue

M/S. the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ufj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 3708/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 44CSection 90

1 ITA Nos.3708 & 3756/Del/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D' NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Pinkeshmumar Melapchand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 599/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Pinkeshkumar Melapchand Shah The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4) B-1, 1St Floor, Abhinandan Flat Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp: Kothari Tower Ramnagar, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad 380005.Gujarat. Pan : Aeaps 0609 D. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ca Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

lakhs, only 8% of the total receipts can be deemed as income, and therefore taxing the entire cash deposits under section 69A results in double taxation and defeats the very purpose of section 44AD. We find merit in this contention as well. It is now settled by many judicial precedents

Shivakumar Mahadevaiahre, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Mysuru

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

ITA 308/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Shivakumar Mahadevaiahre Ito B-9, 9Th Main Lalith Mahal Nagar Ward 2(3) Mysore, Karnataka 570028 Vs. Mysuru-570010 Karnataka Pan:Aczpm8866F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Sukesh Patil, Ca. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 20.12.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071397505(1) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Sri Sukesh Patil, CAFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, JCIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250

demand of Rs.8,32,080/- and thereby assessing this loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- again in A.Y. 2017-18 would lead to double taxation and accordingly directed the Ld. AO to ascertain and satisfy himself that the same claim have been received in F.Y.2013-14 had been carried forward

New Laxmi Enterprises, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2789/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 New Laxmi Enterprises The Income Tax Officer, 702, Laxmi Narayan Apartments, Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai Rane Compound, Natvar Nagar Vs. Road No. 1, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai - 400060 (Pan : Aadfn2479B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073736005(1), Dated 26.02.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assessment Officer, Mum-W- (404)(93), U/S. 147/148 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: " 1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ered In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 1,58,23,513 Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Is A Builder & The Flats Sold Were Stock In Trade Which Is Chargeable To Tax Under The Head Business Income & Not Capital Gains. 2) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Considered That Out Of The Addition Of Rs 1,58,23,513, Sale Value Of Flats Of Rs. 1,56,42,514

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 43CSection 44ASection 50C

Loss account for the year ended 31st March, 2017. Addition on account of Sale of Flats under the head Capital Gains would amount to double Taxation. 3) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the value of Sale of Flats was less than ... already been offered to tax under the head business income, though Ld. AO made the addition under the head capital gains amounting to double taxation. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business as builders under the firm name and style

Shri. Vikram Dhondu Rao, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2558/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 244ASection 250Section 44ASection 90

construed as procedural rather than substantive. The intent of the legislature, as reflected in section 90 of the Act, is to provide relief from double taxation. The denial of Foreign Tax Credit solely on account of a procedural lapse would defeat this very purpose. Further the provisions of DTAA override ... credit for foreign taxes. Article 24(4)(a) is relevant in the present context. Same is extracted below: “4. In the case of India, double taxation shall be avoided as follows: (a) the amount of Australian tax paid under the laws of Australia and in accordance with the provisions

Mr. Vikram Dhondu Rao, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2557/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 44ASection 90

ITA No.2557 & 2558/Bang/2024 Mr. Vikram Dhondu Rao, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

Biswas Manik, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 133(6)Section 17Section 17(2)(v)

claim. 4. The Learned NFAC erred in disposing of the appeal without recognizing that the same income was already offered for taxation, resulting in double taxation. 5. The actions of the Ld. Assessing Officer and Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disregard established legal principles, judicial precedents and constitutional tenets ... same sum is again taxed in the future when the annuity installments are received, it would clearly amount to double taxation of the same income-once at the stage of employer’s contribution and Biswas Manik vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 - 5– again at the time of actual receipt

R R Edifice Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle - 1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 439/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.416/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Vs. Rr Edifice Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aasfr2521L]

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Ms.U Mini Chandran,CIT-DR

Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)

assessee and hence making an addition of Rs.62,791/- on the same income that has been already offered to tax amount to double taxation. (xi) Appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and / or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal

ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. R R Edifice Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 416/HYD/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Ms.U Mini Chandran,CIT-DR

Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)

DCIT Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Shivshankar Ramswaroop Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2730/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

VEPL as well. 52.2. It is contended that such cash receipts are already taxed in the hands of VEPL, and therefore, to avoid double taxation, the in the assessee‘s peak computation. Upon verification of the assessment order of VEPL, which forms part of the paper book placed on record

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Shivshankar Ramswaroop Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are

ITA 2728/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Shri Shiv Shankar Sharma, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are

ITA 2683/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER