← 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

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 dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2682/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

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 dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2162/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

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

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 dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2161/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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. Shiv Shankar Sharma, Mumbai

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

ITA 1690/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

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. Shiv Shankar Sharma, Mumbai

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

ITA 1689/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(1), Delhi, Cr Building vs. Indus Towers Limited, Gurgram

ITA 2805/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 142Section 143(3)

computation of disallowance in an arbitrary, illogical and irrational manner. Re: Disallowance of interest on tax already offered to tax in AY 2015-16-double taxation [Rs.0.53 crores] [AO: Pg 247 to 248; CIT(A): Pg. 157 to 1581 9. That the CIT(A) erred on facts ... amount stands reversed in financial year relevant to assessment year 2015-16 and stands offered to tax in that year; the addition leads to double taxation which is impermissible. 9.1 Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not directing that the aforesaid amount be excluded

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurugram, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

ITA 2607/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 142Section 143(3)

computation of disallowance in an arbitrary, illogical and irrational manner. Re: Disallowance of interest on tax already offered to tax in AY 2015-16-double taxation [Rs.0.53 crores] [AO: Pg 247 to 248; CIT(A): Pg. 157 to 1581 9. That the CIT(A) erred on facts ... amount stands reversed in financial year relevant to assessment year 2015-16 and stands offered to tax in that year; the addition leads to double taxation which is impermissible. 9.1 Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not directing that the aforesaid amount be excluded

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

ITA 2052/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

made by Ld. AO in immediately preceding year for allegedly unrealized MTM loss which has been reversed in the subject year, thus leading to double taxation. Miscellaneous contentions 28. Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). Additional Grounds: 29. That on the facts

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

ITA 1688/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

made by Ld. AO in immediately preceding year for allegedly unrealized MTM loss which has been reversed in the subject year, thus leading to double taxation. Miscellaneous contentions 28. Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). Additional Grounds: 29. That on the facts

Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-24(1), New Delhi

ITA 9080/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

made by Ld. AO in immediately preceding year for allegedly unrealized MTM loss which has been reversed in the subject year, thus leading to double taxation. Miscellaneous contentions 28. Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). Additional Grounds: 29. That on the facts

Bhanu Jewellers Art, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2011/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115Section 115BSection 133Section 143(3)Section 234Section 69A

wholly improper for the AO to again tax these sale proceeds as unexplained cash u/s 69A of the Act, as it would amount double taxation of the same sum. The reliance placed by the Ld. AR in support thereof on the following decisions are found to be relevant ... 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. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we are in agreement with

Hollister Medical India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5352/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Pareekhollister Medical India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, C-8/7, Lawrence Road, Keshav Circle-10(1), Puram, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabch8555K

For Appellant: Ms. Anita Barur, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 41Section 41(1)

Appellant company therefore prays before Your Honour to direct the Ld. AO to delete the said addition as the same would tantamount to double taxation of the same amount. 3. Ground No. III- Non-consideration of corporate tax grounds while passing the DRP directions 3.1 The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Bharat Spun Pipe and Construction Company, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 360/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, (CIT) (V.C.)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153C

taxes has also been paid then making an addition of same income in the total income of the assessee firm will tantamount to double taxation on single income which has no standing in law. In support of this, reliance is placed on following judgements: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Goyal and Co. (Const.) Private Limited., Ahmedabad

ITA 1836/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1836/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Asst.Year 2016-17 The Dcit Goyal & Co. (Const.) Private बनाम/ Central Circle-1(2), Limited V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 009 10Th Floor Commerce House Iv Beside Reliance Petrol Pump 100Ft. Road, Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 अपीलाथ'/ (Appellant) !( यथ'/ (Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.42/Ahd/2024 - िनधा"रण वष" /Ay 2016-17 (In Ita No.1836/Ahd/2024 – Ay 2016-17) V/S. Goyal & Co. (Const.) Private The Dcit Limited Central Circle-1(2), 10Th Floor,Commerce House Iv Ahmedabad – 380 009 Beside Reliance Petrol Pump 100Ft. Road, Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 Pan: Aabcg 5459 R (Cross Objector) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

clarified that once an amount is taxed under IDS, no action should be taken to assess or re-assess the same income to avoid double taxation. Finding the declaration genuine, the Ld.CIT(A) held that through the unaccounted cash payments were made by the assessee for the purchase of land ... such undisclosed income, out of which the alleged cash payments were made. Hence, taxing it again in the assessee’s hands would result in double taxation, contrary to the Board’s binding instructions. Hence, the entire addition was deleted, and the appeal was partly allowed. 10. Being aggrieved

ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result the appeal I

ITA 98/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Rs.1,19,43,383/-(Rs.98,62,500/- Rs.20,80,833/-), in principle, as unexplained expenditure, though deleted the addition on the ground of double taxation and by applying telescoping. 6. The Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of alleged undisclosed turnover of Rs.4,47,46,950/-. 6.1 Without ... seized material, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is required to be confirmed in principle. However, deleted the addition on the ground of double taxation and on account of the benefit of telescoping and held that, the amount available to the assessee out of addition sustained towards unaccounted turnover

ACIT., Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad vs. Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 710/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.710/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2021-22) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Vs. Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabca7366H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 24.02.2025 For The A.Y. 2021-22. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri B.G. Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

paid normally determines the rate of return on the money lent, i.e. the rate of interest. While referring to the Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions (Third Edition) under Article 11 in paragraph 115, the Hon'ble High Court held that the PLR rate, therefore, would not be applicable

Ananda Prasad Venigala, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1384/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1384/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Ananda Prasad Venigala, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aewpp1096B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Ananda Prasad Venigala (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 18.11.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 68

taxed in the hands of the firm is not taxed again in the hands of the partners. This change has led to avoidance of double taxation because the firm does not have to pay tax on salary and interest income paid to the partners and the partners do not have

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Thirugnanasambathan Kumaran, Pudukkottai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1562/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1562/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Thirugnanasambathan Kumaran, Tax, No.42A, Thiyagi Srinivasan Street, Central Circle-2, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai, Trichy. Tamil Nadu-614 616. [Pan: Bgrpk3147A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 69A

while accepting the principle of telescoping. It was urged that by doing the Ld. CIT(A) has brought real income and also simultaneously avoided double taxation of income. Page - 3 - of 5 ITA No. 1562 /Chny/2024 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available ... side and an unexplained cash or asset on the other side, the benefit of telescoping deserves to be given so as to avoid any double taxation. Accordingly, we sustain the same qua the issue of addition of excess cash found of Rs.85,850/-,and dismiss all the grounds of appeal

ACIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hari Krishna Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 3618/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankaracit 5(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Hari Krishna Exports Pvt Ltd Room No.568, 5Th Floor, 1701-B, 17Th Floor, The Capital Bk, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 051 020 Pan: Aacch8430N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 40

167/Mum/2025 Hari Krishna Exports Pvt Ltd ii. Appeals of International taxation charges where the dispute relates to the applicability of the provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement or otherwise.” 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Upon careful consideration, we find that ... would involve interpretation of the contract between the parties as well as the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements in place between India and the USA. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 31. In any event, in our opinion the Revenue's case does not fall

Essay Commercial Resources Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6067/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaressay Commercial Resources V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle 16Th Floor, Tower 2A, One – 2(4), 1001, 10Th Floor, World Center, Senapati Bapat Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Marg, Mumbai 400 013, Cgo Annexe, Maharishi Maharashtra Karve Road, Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacce5161H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms.Prachi Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)

arriving at total income as per provisions of the Act. Such a disallowance would tantamount to disallowing the same amount twice, thus, leading to double taxation of P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2015-16 Essay Commercial Resources Private Limited, Mumbai the same amount. Thus, the disallowance