“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

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 957/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

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

Shamsu Ul Zoha Jermain, Coulsdon, United Kingdom vs. Income Tax Officer, (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1125/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148

similar matters. 5.3 Finally, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition made by the Ld. AO again in A.Y. 2015-16 resulted in double taxation in the hands of the assessee, which is not permissible under law. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to delete the said addition

Virutcham Micro Finance Ltd., Madurai vs. ITO, Corp. Circle.2, Madurai

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

ITA 1313/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1313/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Virutcham Micro Finance Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of C-50, Gurudev Nagar, Avaniyapuram Income Tax, Bypass Road, Madurai 625 002. Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. [Pan:Aaccv9529Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 16.07.2025, We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee. Further, On Perusal Of The Record, We Find That The Notice Issued On 18.06.2025 Returned

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 115JSection 4Section 68

perused the material available on record. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has contended that the addition made by the Assessing Officer constitutes double taxation of income already accounted for by the assessee. It was also contended that the application of section 115BBE of the Act is unwarranted

Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Anna Salai vs. Che-C(1)-251, Nungambakkam, Chennai

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

ITA 1138/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1138/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Prasanna Varma, F.C.A & MrFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

required to be made to the returned income. We also find force in the argument of the assessee qua a case of resultant double taxation. Be that as it may be in the interest of justice we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Ld.AO

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Anil Kumar Bhakkar, Delhi

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

ITA 4769/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanincome Tax Officer, Vs. Anil Kumar Bhakkar, New Delhi. E – 99 – B, Mansarover Garden, Delhi – 110 015. (Pan : Aampb0474B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashok Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2025 Date Of Order : 18.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 23.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.10.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.9,65,820/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass. Based On The Information Available With The Revenue That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Substantial Amount As Compared

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 68

year and Assessing Officer has accepted the same, however, made addition of the same sales u/s 68 of the Act, tantamount to double taxation. He submitted that Assessing Officer accepted the books of account but arbitrarily made the addition of cash deposit without rejecting the books of account. He prayed

Shri Karshni Alloys Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 3508/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 142Section 145(3)Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the additions u/s 69A would tantamount to double taxation which in law is impermissible. 8 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed

ACIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Arihant Textiles, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2257/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 15B

accounts. Hence, the addition of Rs.1,00,55,208/- made by disturbing the net profit rate of the assessee, according to us, tantamount to double taxation. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.1,00,55,208/-. Accordingly

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Jayaraj Jaison, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 2512/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2512/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Jayaraj Jaison, Income Tax, Vs. No.9/10, Prop: Jaison Bkery, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Kavalkinaru, Tirunelveli – 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan:Akgpj-2821-E] (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman,C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai (‘Ld.Cit(A)’ In Short), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Madurai (‘Ao’ In Short), For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’ In Short) 2020-21. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman,C.A

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

thereby subjecting it to tax again under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, results in a clear instance of double taxation. This not only violates the principles of natural justice but also lacks legal justification, as section 68 is applicable only in cases where the nature and source ... constitutes investment from unexplained sources, taxing the same income again under the deeming provisions of Section 69B r.w.s.115BBE of the Act would lead to double taxation and result in manifest injustice. Section 115BBE is not intended to override genuine declarations of business income, particularly when the nature and source

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Int. Taxational 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 749/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailedenred Pte Ltd., C/O. Walker Chandiok & Co. Llp, 16Th Floor, Tower Lll, One International Center, S B Marg, Prabhadevi (West), ............... Appellant Mumbai-400013. Pan : Aacce8636P V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – International Taxation -2(2)(1), Room No. 606, 6Th Floor, ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Singh/Ms. Shivali Mhatre Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh/Ms. Shivali MhatreFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Royalty The AO has erred in considering Infrastructure Data Centre charges of INR 6,76,64,872/- taxable as Royalty under the India - Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 3. Management Service Fees taxed as Royalty The AO has erred in considering Management Service Fees ... erstwhile SurfGold.com (India) Private Ltd) and came to the same is not taxable in India as per Article 12 of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”): - 3 Amount (in Rs.) Sr. No. Particulars Infrastructure data Centre 6,76,64,872 1. Charges (IDC) 64,65,974 Management Service

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

bondholders would have accordingly offered the same to income in their respective returns, disallowance of the said interest would result in double taxation of same income. The A.O was of the view that perpetual bonds was equity and they have equity like features i.e (a) perpetual in nature; (b) high

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

Yogesh Hanumantrao Joshi, Pune vs. DCIT Circle - 12, Pune

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

ITA 956/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 6Section 90

domestic tax laws of UAE As per Article 15(1) of the India-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), income of a Resident of UAE, for services rendered in UAE is taxable only in UAE. As I was a Resident ... return of income in Schedule EI Assessee has claimed exemption under Article 15(1) of the Act of the India-United Arab Emirates Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) Treaty for the exemption of income at Rs.13,38,426/-. However all these details failed to be examined by the CPC before

Ivy Software Development Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the ground no

ITA 73/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

loan is to be re-paid normally determines the rate of return on the money lent, i.e. the rate of interest. Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions (Third Edition) under Article 11 in paragraph 115 states as under:— "The existing differences in the levels of interest rates do not depend