← 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

Kalpana Dilip Mehta As Legal Heir of Dilip D Mehta, Mumbai vs. JCIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. C.A. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

required could be provided from F.Y. 2011-2012 as the prior years are not covered by temporal scope of Article 26 of the Amended Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Switzerland. Therefore, such information could be provided from 1-4-2011. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also placed ... record Notification Dated 27-12-2011 between India and Switzerland Confederation for avoidance of double taxation. These would clearly show that these are applicable after assessment years under appeals and as per information provided vide letter Dated 26-6-2015 no such information could be provided prior

Sudhir Dayalal Mistry, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5764/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

verification. 10. We find that nowhere the ld. CIT (A) has taken into consideration the assessee’s explanation with regard to double taxation TDS on the interim bill and other in the final bill. Apart from that, it is seen that if over all contract receipt is seen is spread

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Geecee Ventures Limited, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4119/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

India (P.) Ltd. 156 taxmann.com 307. In the present case, the Assessee was not claiming the benefit of low tax rate prescribed under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and was merely claiming the credit of Dividend Distribution Taxes paid. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case

Geecee Ventures Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3975/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

India (P.) Ltd. 156 taxmann.com 307. In the present case, the Assessee was not claiming the benefit of low tax rate prescribed under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and was merely claiming the credit of Dividend Distribution Taxes paid. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. Formula One Marketing II Limited, United Kingdom

ITA 5092/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 148Section 154Section 195Section 209Section 234ASection 234B

earlier Beta Prema 2 Limited) ('Assessee') is a company incorporated and a tax resident of the United Kingdom ('UK') for the purpose of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UK ('DTAA') and the Assessee had a right to exploit the circuit/advertising rights of the Formula One Indian Grand

Mohit Sukhija, New Delhi vs. Nfa, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4661/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalmohit Sukhija, Nfa, 7D, Pocket A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi-110018 Vs. Pan: Andps5089H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil Chopra, Ca Department By Sh.Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 29.08.2023 In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10164171 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 343 Days. For The Delay, Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Wherein It Is Stated That Assessee Was Out Of Country When The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Was Passed & Served Through E-Filing Portal. Therefore, He Was Not Aware About The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & The Appeal Could Not Be Filed In Time. He Also Filed The Copy Of The Passport Having Visa & Details Of Travelling Outside India, In Support Of The Claim That He Was Out Of India During The Period When The Order Was Served Upon Him. He Further Stated That As Soon He Returned To India & Came To Know About The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Immediately He Filed The Appeal & Therefore, Prayed For The Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

generated out of such sales could not be doubted and if cash deposits out of such cash sales is taxed, it would tantamount to double taxation. He also filed a written submission which is as under: This case is related to cash deposited during demonetisation period amounting

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Mass Communication Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 3130/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

that the disallowance made had to be sustained, then, the said payment duly disclosed in the closing stock had to be reduced to avoid double taxation [page 68 of PB]. Under either scenario, it would not lead to any income chargeable to tax which had escaped assessment. Accordingly

Islauddin, Jodhpur vs. ITO-Phalodi, Phalodi

ITA 800/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 May 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115BSection 69A

assessee paid tax for AY 2016-17 on the income comprised in these sales. Taxing the realization made from debtors would amount to double taxation. The source of cash deposits is the accumulated balance as per cash book. Once the monies stand recorded in the books, there arises no occasion ... sales in earlier years. Such sales have been offered to tax in earlier years and therefore, taxing the same again would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. These three entities had outstanding balance since 31- 03-2013 and the circumstances under which the dues have ultimately been recovered from

Amitkumar Pravinchandra Reshamwala, Surat vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru / ITO (Int. Tax) Surat, CPC Bengaluru / ITO Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1240/SRT/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1240/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Amitkumar Pravinchandra Deputy Director Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Reshamwala Cpc, Bengaluru/Ao (Int. Tax) Vs. B-1004, Arihant Heightsopp Surat Stuti Icon. Auravpath, Palanpur-395 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Agspr 4047 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90

Rs.8,86,167/- with respect to the US Federal taxes paid u/s 90 of the Act. He submitted that Article 2 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) limit credit to only Federal tax and in not state tax. Section 91 of the Act is not applicable since India had DTAA ... materials on record. We have also deliberated various case laws relied upon by both parties. We have also gone through the India US Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty. Ground No.1 and 2 are inter-related and hence are discussed and decided together. In this case, assessee filed return of income

Rameshkumar Melapchand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1665/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

wholly improper for the AO to again tax these sale proceeds as unexplained income u/s 68 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rameshkumar Melapchand Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1618/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

wholly improper for the AO to again tax these sale proceeds as unexplained income u/s 68 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

Mr. Kallimuddanahalli Thammannagowda Lokesh, Hassan vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Hassan

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

ITA 466/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 156Section 234ASection 246ASection 44A

taxing the same income again to the extent of Rs. 44,06,446/-. 8. The impugned addition is amounting to double taxation of the same income twice and the same is not permissible under the statute. 9. The impugned adjustments being merely based on presumption and surmises ... returns. Therefore the intimation of the CPC in which the income from other sources of Rs. 44,06,446/- was added, is nothing but double taxation. The assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 2142 days and in the delay condonation petition, the assessee submitted that he came

Prashant Kothari, Singapore vs. CIT A (57) Mumbai, Office of Commissioner of Appeals Mumbai

In the result, the additional ground of

ITA 5391/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2016-17
Section 250

case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer shall be directed to allow the Appellant the benefit of Article 13(4) of India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement in respect of the capital gains and allow the capital loss to be carried forward in accordance with the provisions ... assessee has shown his income under the head“capital gains” and which has been claimed as exempt under the provisions of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. In this regard, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer asked the assessee to submit necessary information and documentation in order

Coursera Inc., California vs. ACIT, Circle Intl Tax-1(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1958/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandracoursera Inc. Vs. Acit, Circle-1(2)(1) 381, East Evelyn Avenue International Taxation, Mountain View, Civic Centre, Minto Road California United States New Delhi – 110002 Of America - 94040 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc4141K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv, &For Respondent: Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270A

amount received by the Appellant from Indian customers does not qualify as Fees for Included Services under Article 12(4) of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('India-US tax treaty'). 4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO and DRP erred in holding that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon vs. Hays Business Solutions Private Limited, Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3003/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195(1)Section 250Section 37Section 40

which is a company incorporated in UK and is a tax resident UK. The company is further entitled to avail beneficial provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered into between lndia and UK. The assessee had paid total Rs. 3,48,56,596/- towards the management services

Bhanuben Ramanbhai Surati(Alias Patel) L/H of Late Ramanbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Bardoli

ITA 769/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.769/Srt/2023

Section 143(2)Section 2(47)(v)Section 250Section 50CSection 53a

capital gain during AY.2012-13 in the return of income as per section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act, hence, the same results into double taxation. 3. It is therefore prayed that the above addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please

Vaishali Keshav Kulkarni, Pune vs. ITO Ward 13(2), Pune

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.540/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vaishali Keshav Kulkarni, Flat No.3, Hermes Grandstand Society, Kavade Maal Sopan Baug, Pune Cantt East So., Pune 411001. Pan: Atjpk4884A Appellant/ Assessee V The Income Tax Officer, S Ward-13(2), Pune. Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kartik Natrajan – Ca/Ar Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 13.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Dated 05/03/2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250

said impugned immovable property. My Father had already offered the capital gains to tax as the rightful owner and hence, there will be wrongful double taxation if taxed in my hands." 2.3 Ld.AR also submitted that the Assessing Officer has not provided copy of the reasons recorded for reopening. Ld.AR

Kalimuddin Mohamad Rafique, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-4(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 594/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Giriish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanshi Desai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

Income-tax Act, 1961 as the impugned addition to the extent of Rs.6,49,430/- to the total income of the Appellant amounts to double taxation firstly as business income and secondly as unexplained cash deposit under section 68. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred both

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai vs. Matrix Publicitiies and Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5174/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Vs Matrix Publicities & Of Income Tax-16(1), Media India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai 7Th Floor Bay 99, The Orb, Sahar P & T Colony, S.O., Mumbai 400099 (Pan: Aadcm8510H) Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 69C

moto disallowed an amount of Rs 1,37,50,001 under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act and thus leading to double taxation of same income and thereby violating principles of natural justice 4. without prejudice to the above, erred in ignoring the fact that the Appellant has submitted

Imsofer Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7924/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Deval, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)

paid tax on such services rendered to the Appellant and disallowance of such payment for the services received by the Appellant will lead into double taxation of the same amount. 2. Erroneous consideration of net profit of INR 332,317,314 as book profit instead