“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

Bhupendra Bora, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 230/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Bhupendra Bora, Vs. Dcit, Flat No. S4, Plot No. 618A, Circle-1(1)(1), Sector-1, Vaishali, Dehradun Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajkpb5486A Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 192Section 90

credit for foreign taxes. Article 24(4)(a) is relevant in the present context. Same is extracted below : "4. In the case of India, double taxation shall be avoided as follows : (a) the amount of Australian tax paid under the laws of Australia and in accordance with the provisions

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 507/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

High Court) Tax Appeal No. 573/Ahd/2016 order dated 20.07.2016. The contention of the Ld. A.R. that the additions made by the AO tantamount to double taxation as the prior period expenditure should have been allowed in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Year–2012-13 consonance with

DCIT, Cirlce- 1(1) (1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. American Express Banking Corp. (India Branch), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 165/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

like AESİL will be paying tax on the same income. It is a universally accepted possibility that transfer pricing adjustments can give rise to double taxation. There are other methods under Indian law (like Mutual Agreement Procedures) that will provide relief from double taxation. The assessee is encouraged to take

Ramdas Singh Tomar, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur

ITA 1092/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ramdas Singh Tomar M/s Om Sai Construction, Harikand Ka Pura Faraspura, Dholpur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AMZPT4728R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rahul Pandya, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT सुनवा

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2Section 271ASection 69A

cash withdrawn of Rs. 1,10,52,000.00 from the bank which are duly reflected in Cash Book, Bank Statements & Bank Book. b. Making double Taxation by Adding 8% of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542 i.e Rs 57,243/- which is already offered for Taxation while filling ... Income Tax Return. c. Making double Taxation by Adding interest income of Rs.6,324/-which is already offered for Taxation while filling of Income Tax Return. d. The Learned CIT(A) used Excessive Powers in remanding the case for Limited issue ie verification of contract receipt

Shri Vijay Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

The appeals are allowed

ITA 928/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Ccountant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Zscaler Inc., Vs Dcit, 120, Holger Way San Jose, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), California, Usa, Delhi. Usa 95134. Pan: Aaacz4350P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate; Shri Kishore Kunal, Advocate; Ms Ankita Prakash, Advocate; & Shri Govind Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.10.2023 & 22.01.2025 Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

erred in holding that Zscaler India constitutes Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) by way of DAPE as per the provisions of Article 5 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) between India and USA (India-USA DTAA’). 5. Without prejudice to above, on the facts and circumstances of the case

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Pegasus Agro Industries Private Limited, Agra

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 127/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.127/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S Peggasus Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan (Formerly Known As Bnr Overseas P. Ltd. Sanjay Place 503 Space Tower-2, Near Holy Public School Vs. Agra - 282001 Sikandra, Agra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcb-5997-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. AR

Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 68

Shri Maa Bhagwati Enterprises, the same could not be added again in the hands of the assessee since the same amount would lead to double taxation which is impermissible. Accordingly, no interference is required in the impugned order. 5. The appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income

Ram Raghu Build Well, Agra vs. ITO - Circle 1(1)(1), Agra

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 92/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 92/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) बनाम/ M/S Ram Raghu Build Well Lg Ito- Circle 1(1)(1) 345, Suresh Plaza, Mg Road, Agra Agra Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aajfr-4302-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prathana Jalan, Ca- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 20-04-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Vide Order Dated 05-04-2021. The Substantial Grievance Of The Assessee Is Addition Of Rs.280.24 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. The Assessee Being Partnership Firm Is Engaged In Real Estate Construction. The Assessee Follows Specific Method Of Accounting To Recognize Revenue On The Projects Being Carried On By It. During Assessment Proceedings, Ld. Ao Held That Since Few Of The Projects

For Appellant: Ms. Prathana Jalan, CA- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 43C

years and therefore, the advances as outstanding in the Balance Sheet could not be brought to tax again since the same would amount to double taxation. To support the same, Ld. AR referred to the pleadings made before Ld. CIT(A). 4. From assessee’s submissions, it is quite clear ... arising there-from has already been offered to tax in earlier years. Adding customers’ advances to the income of the assessee would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. We find force in these submissions of Ld. AR. The provisions of Sec. 43CB are applicable only w.e.f

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, Jhansi

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 24/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit - Central Circle Rajendra Kumar Aggarwal Room No. 104, Ist Floor 219, Daru Bhondela, Jhansi बनाम/ Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Sanjay Place 284002. Agra-282002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abtpa-1493-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 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 (Appeals), Kanpur [Cit(A)] Dated 14-11-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Dcit, Central Circle (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.810 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao In The Assessment Order.

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

assessee do not have any other source of income. The sales turnover has duly been accepted and the impugned addition would result into double taxation which is impermissible. Pertinently, no defect has been pointed out in the books of accounts. The assessee has furnished cash book which would show that

ACIT., Central Circle, Aligarh vs. M/S Radharani Jewellers Ltd, Delhi

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 23/AGR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.23/Agr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Central Circle M/S Radharani Jewellers Limited बनाम/ 5882/4, 2Nd Floor, Block No.4, Aaykar Bhawan, Sanjay Place Vs. Agra - 282002. Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecr-3358-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 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 (Appeals), Kanpur Dated 23-12-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Acit, Central Circle, Agra (Ao) U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31-12-2019. The Sole Issue In The Appeal Is Addition Of Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period. 2. The Ld. Cit-Dr Advanced Arguments & Supported The Findings Of Ld. Ao Whereas Ld. Ar Also Advanced Arguments & Supported The Findings Of Ld. Cit(A) In The Impugned Order. Having Heard Rival

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

were duly credited in the Profit & Loss Account and sales were duly reflected in the VAT returns. A separate addition thereof would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. 5. It could be seen that the assessee furnished plethora of documents in support of its submissions. The same include

Asst.CIT., Central Circle, Agra vs. Bipin Babu Agarwal, Mathura

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 156/AGR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri M.M.Agrawal (CA) – Ld. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 44ASection 68

sales invoices. The sales made by the assessee were duly credited in the Profit & Loss Account and a separate addition thereof would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. 5. It could also be seen that the assessee has furnished plethora of documents in support of its submissions. The same

Bipin Babu Agrawal, Mathura vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Agra

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 149/AGR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.149/Agr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Bipin Babu Agarwal Dcit / Acit बनाम/ 16, Kamla Vihar Colony Central Circle Vs. Masani, Mathura 281 001 Agra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpa-0864-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri M. M. Agrawal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4 [Cit(A)] Dated 28-06-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30-09-2021. Having Heard Vehement Arguments Of Both The Sides & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. During The Year, The Assessee Being Resident Individual Carried Out Business Activities In Proprietorship Concern Namely M/S Parshant Silver Handicrafts. Assessment Proceedings 2.1 The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized Pursuant To Search Action On R.S. Bullion & Jewellers Group Of Cases At Mathura

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Agrawal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)

books of accounts. The cash deposits are duly substantiated by the cash book of the assessee. Making separate addition thereof would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. Therefore, this addition stands deleted. We order so. The Ld. AO is directed to recompute the income of the assessee in terms

ACIT Circle-2(1), Gwalior vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Gwalior

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 23/AGR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.16/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta Acit - Circle-2 बनाम/ F-11, Harishankar Puram Gwalior Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.23/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit Circle-2 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta बनाम/ Gwalior F-11, Harishankar Puram Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (CIT) – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

income found recorded in various incriminating material / loose papers for taxation and offered the same to tax. Adding the same again would tantamount to double taxation which is not permissible under the law. Upon perusal of LPS-5, Page No.7, it was noted that front side of this page ... overlooked this fact and made separate addition for the same. As rightly held by Ld. CIT(A), adding the same again would amount to double taxation which is not permissible under the law. The assessee honored his statement by incorporating undisclosed income found recorded in various incriminating material / loose papers

Ashok Kumar Gupta, Gwalior vs. ACIT, Gwalior

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 16/AGR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (CIT) – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)