“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

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Pranavkumar Prafulchandra Vora, Gujrat

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

ITA 7596/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 68

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that sustaining the addition would amount to double taxation. without appreciating that section 68 operates independently of the profit and loss disclosure and the burden lies on the assessee to establish genuineness of entries, failing which

Mckinsey & Company India LLP, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-29(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1028/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

present appeal in view of the resolution of the disputes under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) contained in Article 27 of the India–USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The relevant extract of the said written request letter are reproduced as under: 2. Ref: McKinsey & Company India LLP (McKinsey ... hereby submits that it had filed an application under the provisions of Article 27 [Mutual Agreement Procedure ('MAP')] of the India- United States ('US') Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('India-US tax treaty') in respect of the transfer pricing adjustments made by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer

Zensar Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3439/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 10ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 263Section 80GSection 80J

complete scrutiny. A reading of the original assessment order reveals that the following issues were identified by the Assessing Officer for enquiry/examination:- i. Double Taxation Relief u/s. 90/91. ii. iii. iv. V. vi. vii. Reduction of Income in Revised Return & Claim of Refund. Imports. Loss from Currency Fluctuations. Refund Claim

Firstrand Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

banks represent consideration for the use of payment network which falls within the definition of ‘Royalty’ under Article 12(3) of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) taxable in India at the rate of 10% under its Article 12(2). 12.1. The sole emphasis of the assessee is that ... settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme since the issue represented only a timing difference. 22 FirstRand Bank Limited AY 2018-19 Consequently, to prevent double taxation of the same income, assessee claimed a corresponding reduction in Assessment Year 2018-19. Ld. Assessing Officer, however, disallowed the reduction in Assessment Year

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7487/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Australia & New Zealand Deputy Commissioner Of Banking Group Ltd. Income-Tax – 1(1)(2), Unit A, Sixth Floor, Mumbai Cnergy Centre, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 (Pan : Aaica3008P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order Dated 04.09.2018 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground 1: Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Relating To Processing Fees Received On Account Of Guarantees Issued To Indian Companies Based On Counter-Guarantee From Overseas Branches

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

overseas branches of the Appellant from ANZ Mumbai liable to tax in the hands of the Appellant under Article 11 of the India- Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO, based on the directions ... amounting to Rs 2,98,64,616 is liable to tax in the hands of the Appellant under Article 11 of the India- Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement 2.1. Assessee filed application for admission of additional grounds vide letter dated 19.04.2024 raising legal issue that the impugned assessment order

Vikul Panchal, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal (ITA No2138/Ahd/2025) filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2340/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarita No.2340/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Ms. Apporva Bhardwaj, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kakne Kisanrao

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

disclosed in the audited financial statements for the relevant assessment year. The addition, being based on a misappreciation of facts and resulting in double taxation of the same income, is unjustified and bad in law. As such, the addition of Rs.39,99,642/- may please be deleted.. 4. That

Vikul Panchal, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(10), Ahmedabad, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal (ITA No2138/Ahd/2025) filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2138/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarita No.2340/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Ms. Apporva Bhardwaj, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kakne Kisanrao

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Dileepkumar Bankeylal Pradhan, Bharatpur vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara

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

ITA 713/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Senthil Kumarthe Ito Dileepkumar Bankeylal Pradhan Vs. Ward-4(1)(7) C/O. J. N. Goyal & Company Vadodara 390 007 C-162 Ranjeet Nagar Bharatpur Rajasthan – 321 001

For Appellant: Shri Rajeevkumar Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 15Section 17(2)(v)

taxing the same amount twice-once at the stage of employer's contribution and again at the time of annuity receipts- resulting in double taxation, which in our view is impermissible in law. The Department's reliance on Form 16 and Form 26AS is erroneous, as these do not override

DCIT (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad vs. Thogarchedu Subha Sri, Hyderabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1058/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri BG Reddy, Advocate

Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90(4)Section 90(5)

whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified in holding that the assessee is eligible for computation of tax at special rates as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with USA without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit/provide the requisite Tax Residency Certificate as provided u/s.90 ... applicable rates in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) read with the provisions of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). While computing the tax liability, the assessee applied the beneficial rates under the DTAA as under: (a) Tax computed

Manoj Kumar Patodia, West Bengal vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata, West Bengal

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

ITA 2101/KOL/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

that the Govt. of India received certain information from a foreign Government by virtue of provisions for exchange of information under the Bilateral Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with that country. As per the information the assessee had operated bank account in Switzerland with the HSBC bank. The case

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1751/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalshell International Petroleum Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited Income Tax (International C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd Floor, Taxation) 4(2)(1), Lodhaexcelus, Apollo Mills Mumbai Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal and Shreyas Sardesai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant for providing General BSS constitutes FTS under the Act as well as India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('India-UK DTAA'). 4. Failed in appreciating that the services provided by the Appellant are routine and not technical in nature

Hemant Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kasturi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3926/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3926/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Hemant Kumar, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, R. No. 316A, 3Rd Floor, Cr Building, Ip Estate, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant New Delhi 110002 बिाम Vs. Kasturi Jewellers P. Ltd., Gg-1/140A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi 110018 .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aacck-7027-J

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Atul Puri, Chartered Accountant

Section 115BSection 139ASection 68

correspond to normal business trends, and post-facto revisions are used to accommodate unexplained credits (see Dewas Soya Ltd- "Addition resulting in double taxation is permitted only if deposits are not linked to genuine sales found in books"). IV. Survey Findings and Revenue Evidence Para 10: AO and department survey ... effective rates, and no deduction for business expenses can be claimed, nor can losses be set off. The argument 4 of double taxation is not tenable where underlying transaction is not genuine and sales are not proved to relate to business income. AO has rightly initiated penalty proceedings separately

Alfa Modern Mobiles Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Cr Building

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

ITA 5701/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Alfa Modern Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito A-24/2, Naraina Industrial Ward-2(1) Area, Phase-I, C.R. Building New Delhi-110028. Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaica6087C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranshu Goel, Ca & Shri Aditya Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44ASection 46ASection 69A

consider that the cash deposits were already disclosed in the books of accounts and represented sales, thus making the addition unjustified and resulting in double taxation. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law by not appreciating the explanation provided for the sundry creditors amounting

India Infrastructure Finance Company Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, I.P. Estate, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5552/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

crores was recovered and offered for tax in FY 2017-18 & INR 34.98 crores in FY 2018-19 till 24.12.2018. Therefore, further disallowance is double taxation. 14. After considering the arguments of the parties and the facts of the present case, we find that the solitary ground from making disallowance

DCIT Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6471/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit Circle-2(3)(1) Tata Steel Limited 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bombay House, 24, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai, Gpo, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb1247M (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Assessee By Ms. Jasmin Amalasadvala, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2026

Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250Section 268ASection 68

said amount formed part of the alleged fictitious sales of Rs. 36,82,529/- already taxed and that sustaining both additions would amount to double taxation of the same transaction. This finding is essentially based on the settled principle that the same income cannot be brought to tax twice. Further

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6211/MUM/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

following information is received under article 28 at the convention between the Govt. of India and Govt. of France for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of Fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital. The information is forwarded to this office by DIT(Inv.), Mumbai

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6209/MUM/2025[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6195/MUM/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6194/MUM/2025[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6193/MUM/2025[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)