← 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

ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi vs. Spring Infradev Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 611/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 47

respondent-assessee for the services rendered to an Indian company, i.e., HSIPL, was taxable. (ii) The benefit of article 12 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (in short, "Indo-USA DTAA") was available to the respondent-assessee. (iii) The rectification had been ordered by the Centralized Processing Centre

ACIT Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 141/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 36(1)(v)

provision for income tax of Rs.30,00,000/-. Accordingly, any further adding of the amount, would amount to a double addition and consequently double taxation of the same amount. Therefore, since the Assessing Officer had already adopted the higher figure as disclosed in the return for the purposes of computation

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT, Lucknow

ITA 114/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

provision for income tax of Rs.30,00,000/-. Accordingly, any further adding of the amount, would amount to a double addition and consequently double taxation of the same amount. Therefore, since the Assessing Officer had already adopted the higher figure as disclosed in the return for the purposes of computation

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy. CIT, Lucknow

ITA 113/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT-
Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

provision for income tax of Rs.30,00,000/-. Accordingly, any further adding of the amount, would amount to a double addition and consequently double taxation of the same amount. Therefore, since the Assessing Officer had already adopted the higher figure as disclosed in the return for the purposes of computation

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT, Lucknow

ITA 112/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

provision for income tax of Rs.30,00,000/-. Accordingly, any further adding of the amount, would amount to a double addition and consequently double taxation of the same amount. Therefore, since the Assessing Officer had already adopted the higher figure as disclosed in the return for the purposes of computation

Royal Western India Turf Club Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 915/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2016-17
Section 194BSection 201Section 201(1)

taxes on the said income, the assessee-deductor cannot be compelled to pay TDS again on the same income because it would lead to double taxation on the same income. Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola (supra

Saffron Art Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -8(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 526/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Sakhardande, Sr. DR
Section 250

assessee further submitted that since the income is already offered to tax denying the benefit of TDS in the current year will amount to double taxation and accordingly prayed that the credit for TDS be allowed. However, the CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee stating that there ... which tax is deducted is already offered to tax in AY 2016-17 denying the TDS credit in AY 2017-18 would amount to double taxation. The ld. AR further argued that there is no loss to the revenue by allowing the credit towards Saffron Art Private Ltd. tax deducted

Sterling and Wilson Renewable Energy Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1748/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai(Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Am) Sterling & Wilson Acit, Circle-14(1)(2) Renewable Energy Limited Aayakar Bhavan 9Th Floor, Universal Majestic Vs. M.K. Road Pl Likhande Marg, Chembur Churchgate West, Mumbai-400 043. Mumbai-40 0020. Pan : Aaicr1703J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Sudha RamachandranFor Respondent: Shri Jeet Kamdar
Section 90(2)

order of Ld. CIT(A). 5. Rival submissions are heard. The appellant is entitled to FTC for the following reasons :- a) The Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement override the Provisions of Income Tax Act as they are more beneficial to the appellant as per section

General Organization for Social Insurance, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - (International Taxation) Circle 2(3)(2) - Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1408/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234CSection 270ASection 274

grounds: “Re.: Erroneous classification of Rights Entitlement as akin to Right Shares and taxing it under Article 13(5) of the India-Saudi Arabia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA"): 1. 1. The learned ACIT, under the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'), erred in classifying the Rights ... assessee's appeal, pertains to the taxability of capital gains on the sale of rights entitlement under Article 13 of the India-Saudi Arabia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee was established

Leela Dutt Sharma, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 928/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 144Section 69A

been already added to the turnover of the assessee and therefore, addition of the same cannot be done as it would amount to double taxation as held in following decisions : i. Anantpur Kalpana vs. ITO [ITA No. 541 /Bang/2021] (Bang Trib) ii. Kishore Jeram Bhai Kanhaiya ... added to the turnover and credited to P&L A/c and therefore, addition of the same cannot be done as it would amount to double taxation as held in Anantpur Kalpana vs. ITO (supra) and Kishore Jeram Bhai Kanhaiya vs ITO (supra). 9.4 In view of the above facts

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

stated that the working capital adjustment duly captures the impact of credit terms, and therefore, a separate adjustment on outstanding receivables would lead to double taxation and the assessee maintained a uniform policy of not charging interest on delayed payments from both AEs and non-AEs. In assessee

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

stated that the working capital adjustment duly captures the impact of credit terms, and therefore, a separate adjustment on outstanding receivables would lead to double taxation and the assessee maintained a uniform policy of not charging interest on delayed payments from both AEs and non-AEs. In assessee

Mixpanel, Inc., San Francisco vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), International Tax, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1605/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nishank Vashistha, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153Section 234ASection 270ASection 274

taxable as Fee for included Services as per the Act and also as per the provisions of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). i. The said finding of the Impugned Order is, on the face of it, illegal and fallacious in view of the decisions of this

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1465/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

given a voluntary statement that cash belonged to him and had filed an application before ITSC for settlement and addition would result in double taxation in hands of assessee and person who claimed ownership of seized cash - However, said application was rejected and order under section 153A was passed making

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralcircle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1464/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

given a voluntary statement that cash belonged to him and had filed an application before ITSC for settlement and addition would result in double taxation in hands of assessee and person who claimed ownership of seized cash - However, said application was rejected and order under section 153A was passed making

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

given a voluntary statement that cash belonged to him and had filed an application before ITSC for settlement and addition would result in double taxation in hands of assessee and person who claimed ownership of seized cash - However, said application was rejected and order under section 153A was passed making

Indian Products Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 359/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri T. Ravindra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 40ASection 40A(7)Section 40A(9)Section 43B

which was already taken in computing the Income from Business disregarding the computation of the appellant thus resulting in double taxation. The sums were already disallowed although under a wrong column. 5. Any other ground that may be taken during the course of appeal proceedings.” 3. On reading

Rose Serviced Apartments (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4041/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 68

Keeping in view the material brought on the record, we hereby direct the AO to verify the facts and give relief on account of double taxation by taking this income in the return as Nil and taxing the same income under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE

Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo vs. Kamla Oleo Private Limited, Barotiwala

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 897/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.897/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito M/S Kamla Oleo Private Limited बनाम/ Parwanoo, Village Buranwala, Barotiwala Vs. Himachal Pradesh-173220. Solan, Himachal Pradesh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadck-7696-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Adv.). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Cit(A)] Dated 25-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2019. The Issues That Arise In The Appeal Are – (I) Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68; (Ii) Disallowance U/S 14A; (Iii) Addition Of Unexplained Credit U/S 69A. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. The Assessee Being

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Adv.). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68Section 69A

questioned that purchases, instead the conclusion was speculative concerning the actuality of purchases or sales during the demonetization period. Consequently, this has resulted in double taxation, wherein the amount of cash sales has been counted both as part of the appellant’s trading results and unexplained income by the assessing

Jaluidanga Paschim Nasaratpur Samaby Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Bardhaman, West Bengal vs. Income Tax Oppficer, Ward-1(3), Burdwan

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

ITA 2558/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR
Section 36Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

your appellant and charging of tax on it. The following case laws maybe referred Treating Cash deposit from business income as unexplained results in double taxation - Nitin Kumar Bohra vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore , ITA NO.340/Bang/2024, A.Y.-2017-18 , date of pronouncement 24/09/2024. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, “B” Bench