“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Estate Officer, Huda Panchkula, Panchkula

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee in those appeals are also dismissed

ITA 219/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal & Ms. Rattan Kaur, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 148

year. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that further assessment of the same amounts in the hands of the assessee would result in double taxation, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided 7 detailed findings on this issue. Upon reviewing the findings of the learned

Ramakrishna Teletronics Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 988/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 250Section 69A

assessee had already offered the tax to the government in the form of sales. Then the addition made by the A.O will amounts to double taxation. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the addition made on the sole ground of deviation in the ratio of cash ... appellant- company had already paid the due taxes to the Government in the form of VAT tax and again making addition will amounts to double taxation which is not sustainable in the eye of law. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, since the appellant-company has explained

Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Industries Private Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1712/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1712/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Vs Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dhunseri House, 4A Woodburn Park, L.R.Sarani, West Bengal-700020 Pan No. :Aafcd 5214 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ca & Vidhi Ladia, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Pradip Kumar Mondal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26/07/2024, Passed By The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre U/S.143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) R.W.S.144B Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2020-2021 On The Following Grounds :- 1.(A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Tpo Erred In Making A Downward Adjustment Of Rs.24,72,79,392/- In Respect Of The Transfer Value Of Power By The Captive Power Plant At Haldia, West Bengal. (B) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Methodology Followed By The Assessee To Benchmark The Arm'S Length Value Of The Power Transferred By The Eligible Unit To The Non-Eligible Unit Fulfilled The Internal Cup Parameters & In That View Of The Matter The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Tpo Was Impermissible On The Given Facts & In Law. (C) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Manner In Which The Drp/Tpo Has Benchmarked

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, CA and VidhiFor Respondent: Pradip Kumar Mondal, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 80ISection 92C

which is attached at page no. 212 to 220 of the paper book and in case the same is disallowed, it would result in double taxation. We note that that the assessee has filed form 69 on 29.11.2022. The AO further noticed that the CBDT clarified the issue of Education

ACIT, Kolkata vs. Subhas Kumar Kedia, Kolkata

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1648/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, DR

Section 143(1)Section 245D(4)Section 68

cash in hand as on 1st April 2006 before the settlement commission which eventually has already suffered the tax again. Thus, to avoid the double taxation, we are inclined to admit the contention of the assessee that he has received cash from the society which was utilized to deposit ... reason of not treating the same being deposited by appellant in its bank as a source of deposit as that will result in double taxation of the same money. 5.3.6 Further, the AO has not commented on the explanation of the appellant with regard to the balance deposit

Mantra Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6273/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

offered to tax on realization basis. Thus, bringing this notional marked-to-market gain to tax in the year under consideration leads to double taxation. 4.3. Ld. AO did not accept the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to make the addition of this amount while completing the assessment

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Mool Ji Diamonds, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvcoateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 68

where the cash sales duly offered to tax have been accepted, bringing the realization of sale proceeds in cash to tax will amount to double taxation and the same is clearly unsustainable in law and cannot be upheld. In view of the same, we find the explanation of the assessee ... that accepting the cash sale by the Assessee offered to tax, and then addition of same cash deposited in the bank, will amount of double taxation and the same is clearly unsustainable in the law and cannot be justified. Therefore, we find that the explanation offered by the Assessee

Mr.Jayaram Subramanaiam, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 26/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.26/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Mr.Jayaram Subramaniam, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9A Nn Laxmi Street, Income Tax, Valasaravakkam, Central Circle-2(1), Aswathy, Chennai Chennai- 600 087. [Pan: Afaps5678H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Lavanya, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

hence was eligible to file an appeal against the same before the first appellate authority. The action of the CPC in alleged double taxation and incorrect application of tax rates etc. squarely constituted an event to cause grievance to the assesse. In view of the clear statutory position of section

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incomet Tax. Circle- Ltu -2, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1678/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C NareshFor Respondent: ShriKrishna Kumar SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 90

while relying on provisions of section 90(2) and 90(4) failed to note that while 90(2) also provides for avoidance of double taxation 90(4) of the Act is not applicable as the assessee is a resident in India.The Ld. AO in the computation sheet has included income

DCIT Circle-3(1), Gwalior vs. G.L.R. Real Estate P Ltd, Gwalior

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 464/AGR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Gourav Goyal, CA – Ld. AR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)

remains to be controverted before us. As rightly held by Ld. CIT(A), adding estimated profit of 25% in this year would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. Therefore, no infirmity could be found in the impugned order on this issue. 8. The Ld. AO made another addition

Jagdeep Singh, Chandigarh vs. DCIT CC-I, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 82/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.A &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR (Virtual)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

appreciation of facts,  Non-consideration of disclosures made before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission,  Erroneous attribution of unexplained cash to the assessee, resulting in double taxation. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under 3. Section 132 of the Income ... liability had already  been assumed by the company in its settlement application. The addition in the hands of the assessee would result in double taxation,  which is not permissible under law. GTIPL filed the refund claim for the seized cash, not the assessee  personally, further establishing the company's ownership

Gurpreet Singh, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, ACIT(Cen)-1 Chd, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 111/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

appreciation of facts, • Non-consideration of disclosures made before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, • Erroneous attribution of unexplained cash to the assessee, resulting in double taxation. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income ... liability had already been assumed by the company in its settlement application. • The addition in the hands of the assessee would result in double taxation, which is not permissible under law. • GTIPL filed the refund claim for the seized cash, not the assessee personally, further establishing the company's ownership

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Deepak Sanghvi, Sheoganj Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1924/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT D.R. & Shri KavanFor Respondent: Shri Parth Mehta, C.A

Section 147

towards cash deposited in HDFC Bank acount, the addition of the same amount in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation, which is not justifiable. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) deleted addition in the hands of the assessee with the following observations: “7.2 During the appellate proceedings ... view Ld. CIT(A) has correctly noted that the additions of the same cash deposit in the hands of the assessee, would amount to double taxation since similar addition with respect to the aforesaid cash deposits made in HDFC Bank had already been added in the hands of M/s. Greendiam

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpura Ahmedabad vs. Deepak Sanghvi, Sheoganj

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1923/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT D.R. & Shri KavanFor Respondent: Shri Parth Mehta, C.A

Section 147

towards cash deposited in HDFC Bank acount, the addition of the same amount in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation, which is not justifiable. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) deleted addition in the hands of the assessee with the following observations: "7.2 During the appellate proceedings ... view Ld. CIT(A) has correctly noted that the additions of the same cash deposit in the hands of the assessee, would amount to double taxation since similar addition with respect to the aforesaid cash deposits made in HDFC Bank had already been added in the hands of M/s. Greendiam