“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

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)--50, Mumai

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

ITA 2229/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

stock has been duly offered to tax. The action of the AO considering such minor difference in stock as cash sales would tantamount to double taxation of the same stock. 115. The Ld. AO has applied an ad-hoc rate of Rs. 17,000/- per tonne while computing disallowance

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Knwon As Smartech Technologies Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai-50, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2228/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

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

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartech Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai.50, Mumbai

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

ITA 2227/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bata India Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed and the CO is dismissed

ITA 1844/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in ITA No. 1844/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10;

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

dividend of Rs. 7,67,13,621/- distributed/paid to the non-resident shareholder(s), to 10 percent in terms of Article 10 of the double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA) between India and Netherlands read with Article 10 and the protocol to the DTAA between India and Hungry instead ... back of the liability in the relevant previous year, and in order to correctly compute the taxable income of the assessee and to avoid double taxation the said amount was then claimed as a deduction while computing taxable income of the assessee. Thus, the disallowance made

Sri Shivakumara Swamy Credit Coop Society Limited, Davanagere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 474/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 68

customers was already admitted as income and if the cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. It is also on record that the assessee

Rajesh Gokulchand Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 2257/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Gokulchand Agrawal Ito, Ward-41(3)(3), G.M. Enterprises, 24,Old Hanuman Vs Kautilyabhavan, Bandrakurla Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400002. Mumbai-400051. [Pan No. Aawpa9648Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 254(1)Section 69C

purchase had already been offered to tax in P & L account, therefore the addition made in assessment of entire purchase (100%) had resulted into double taxation; e) The Ld. AO had not rejected the appellant's books of account u/s.145(3) and had not brought any contrary material on record

Sanjiv Soshil Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2096/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Income-tax – 1, Mumbai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 90

assessment. On 29/06/2021, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and the assessee was required to clarify in respect of the double taxation relief u/s 90/91 of the Act and the claim of refund. The assessee filed a detailed reply which reads as under:- 8 July ... Annexure 3 c) Copy of computation of total income enclosed as Annexure 4 d) Form 16 and Form 12BA as Annexure 5. Details of Double taxation relief under section 90 of the Act: During FY 2019-20, I was employed with Hindustan Unilever Limited ('HUL') and qualified

Md Parwez Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 839/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

that accounting same transactions in the books of account of the appellant and also in the books of accounts of the firm will become double taxation which is not maintainable in the eyes of law. 6. For that after the dissolution of the firm the PAN being AAIFG1379C has become

Albert Joseph Rozario, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int. Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1168/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

case be rendered as a protective assessment while the assessment of Mrs. Cecilia Rozario remains substantive. As per the DRP, this will prevent double taxation on the same income while reserving the option to activate assessee‟s assessment should in the hands of Mrs. Cecilia Rozario be annulled or otherwise

Krishna Fashion World, Chembur, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 3273/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3270 To 3273/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) M/S. Krishna Fashion V/S. Income Tax Officer World बिाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 803/804, T-6, Godrej 22(2)(1), Room No. 312, Prime Colony, Sahakar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Nagar No.2, Shell Colony, 400012 Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfk2799R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr A/W Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR a/w

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

without verifying the fact whether recipient of the sum has offered the same to the return of income so as to avoid double taxation of one source of income. Ground No 5: Addition Of Rs.2,13,738 By Disallowing Depreciation Claimed On Addition Made To Fixed Assets

Krishna Fashion World, Chembur, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 3272/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR a/w

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Ms. Krishna Fashion World, Chembur vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 3271/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3270 To 3273/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) M/S. Krishna Fashion V/S. Income Tax Officer World बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 803/804, T-6, Godrej 22(2)(1), Room No. 312, Prime Colony, Sahakar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Nagar No.2, Shell Colony, 400012 Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfk2799R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr A/W Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- These Four Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi 24.05.20254 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In These Appeals.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR a/w

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Ms. Krishna Fashion World, Chembur vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 3270/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR a/w

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Balasubramanian Saravanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-17(7), Chennai

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

ITA 1498/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

that Section 90, Section 90A and Section 91 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 have been drafted specifically to avoid the burden of double taxation. 7 In the present case, even though the petitioner had not uploaded Form~67 while filing return of tax, later he uploaded the same

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Elegant Builders and Developers, Bangalore

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

ITA 1679/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya K. K., Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

method and has thus recognized the entire revenue of these five projects in AY 2018-19. This action of the AO also amounts to double taxation as the entire income from these five projects has been offered to tax in the assessment years prior to AY 2018-19. The assessee

M/S. Elegant Builders and Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1240/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya K. K., Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Mehta Emporium Jewellers, Mumbai

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

ITA 2830/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2830/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year :2019-20) Deputy Commissioner V/S. Mehta Emporium Of Income Tax- Central बिधम Jewellers Circle 8(3), Mumbai 101, Mehta Arch, S.V. Road, Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Opp. Natraj Market, Malad Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (West), Mumbai 400064 Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalfm2962N Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Devendra Jain रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69A

invoices submitted and stock reconciliation statement. 5. Cash found duly recorded in books and offered for tax an addition would lead to double taxation. 6. Source of cash along with necessary reconciliation and explanation done by the appellant. Hence addition deleted.” 5. Ld. DR has argued that the addition

Green Maiden A 2013, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1986/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri Hardik Nirmal/ MsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 153Section 61Section 63

should be considered as the income of the transferor ie. ADIA b) as per Article 24 of the India - UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('Tax Treaty') the said interest income is exempt from tax in India in the hands of ADIA c) accordingly, by virtue of provisions of specific provisions ... Indian portfolio companies. As the ADIA and the trustee were denied the benefit of tax exemption under Article 24 of the India- UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) and for the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19 similar income was brought to tax, show cause notice dated 23/03/2023

Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel, Daman vs. ITO, Daman

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 961/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT DR

added as income. Then fixed deposits creation is outflow from the inflow already added as income. This addition is the fit case of DOUBLE TAXATION. Once as the credit entries in the bank and second as the Fixed deposit creation outflow from the bank. 5. In Para ... income. These receipts were already considered as income at the time of making addition of credit entries. This is again the case of DOUBLE TAXATION. 7. In Para 15 of the assessment order there is an addition of Rs.15.75,764. This income is already taxed in Para

Gmdc Science & Research Centre, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Palanpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed for Statistical purpose

ITA 958/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel &For Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

year accumulation period. AO shall also examine whether any income has already been offered to tax in a later year to avoid double taxation. Thus, the Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed for Statistical ... Nos.957&958/Ahd/2015 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2011-12 12 examine whether any income has already been offered to tax in a later year to avoid double taxation. Thus, the Ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed for Statistical