← 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

Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT CC 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

ITA 1144/AHD/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

accrued/notional interest. Indisputably, the addition on the basis of cash system as well as on the basis of mercantile system, will result in double taxation. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and given relief to the assessee in this respect

Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT CC 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1142/AHD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT CC 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1141/AHD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2016-2017
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

accrued/notional interest. Indisputably, the addition on the basis of cash system as well as on the basis of mercantile system, will result in double taxation. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and given relief to the assessee in this respect

Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT CC 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahemedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1140/AHD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT CC 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1139/AHD/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT CC 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1138/AHD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

accrued/notional interest. Indisputably, the addition on the basis of cash system as well as on the basis of mercantile system, will result in double taxation. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and given relief to the assessee in this respect

DCIT(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbai vs. Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 5715/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

India-UK DTAA. The relevant observations of the ld. CIT (A) are as under : “12. Comparing Article 11(3) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with the detailed breakup reproduced above form basis for decision. Article 11(3) has several parts and we have to focus whether the payment ... plain reading of the break up of each expenses, worst come worst, vis-a-vis multiple aspects in Article 11(3) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, leads to the fact that the payment is for information concerned commercial experience.” 5.i Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) after incorporating the submissions

Owens Corning (Singapore) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4629/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2021-22 Owens Corning (Singapore) Dcit (International Private Limited Tax), Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai. C/O. Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Vs Limited, 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Maharashtra-400076. Pan: Aabco 5666 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

fees for technical services' in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance 2 Owens Corning (Singapore) Private Limited A.Y. 2021-22 Agreement entered between India and Singapore ("India-Singapore Tax Treaty"). 1.2 The Appellant submits

Feedertech Pte Lyd, Nerul, Navi Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nariman Point

ITA 4206/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 15Section 234BSection 234CSection 44B

disallowance made by Assessing Officer by failing to appreciate that the Appellant assessee's case is liable for relief under Article 8 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore on the freight income earned by the Appellant an therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.3 ... income of Rs.45,57,04,930/- from the vessel voyages performed in the international traffic and claimed the relief under Article-8 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore. The assessee while filing the return of income has disclosed Rs.3

Abb Switzerland Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT (It)-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 776/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

business connection in India under the Act and also a PE in India in terms of Article 5(1) and Article 5(5) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Switzerland ('DTAA'). b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT (I) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 790/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

business connection in India under the Act and also a PE in India in terms of Article 5(1) and Article 5(5) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Switzerland ('DTAA'). b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 940/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

business connection in India under the Act and also a PE in India in terms of Article 5(1) and Article 5(5) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Switzerland ('DTAA'). b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2180/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

business connection in India under the Act and also a PE in India in terms of Article 5(1) and Article 5(5) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Switzerland ('DTAA'). b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred

Build Tec Construction, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 1(1) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

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

ITA 4566/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151A

erred in making the addition of Rs. 24,00,000/- without verify the fact that same is tax neutral and in-fact having double taxation.” 3. It was submitted by ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Patna, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chauraha vs. Mohamad Israil Cold Storages Private Limited, Ara

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 198/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.198/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Circle-1, Patna…………...………………...…….………....Appellant Vs. Mohamad Israil Cold Storages Pvt. Ltd............................…..…..... Respondent 33Kh, Chik Toli, Bazar Samiti, Ara Bihar – 802301. [Pan: Aagcm3392N] Appearances By: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,87,600/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For Examination Of Cash Deposits Made During The Period Of Demonetization. Accordingly, Notices U/S 142(1) & 143(2) Of The Act Were Issued & The Assessee Responded By Submitting His Itr, Computation Of Income, Audit Report, Bank Statements & Other Supporting Documents Through Itr Portal. Upon Reviewing The Submissions, The Assessing Officer Observed That The During The

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

amount deposited in bank account has already taxed and by adding the same amount u/s 69A of the Act, it will tantamount to double taxation, which is contrary to the law. We also find that without rejecting the books of account, the Assessing Officer’s action treating the cash deposits

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Chandigarh vs. Atma Ram Jewellers, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 206/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059539557 (1) Dated 10.01.2024 Passed By Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18 & The Previous Year Period Is From 01.04.2016 To 31.03.2017. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Trading Jewellery. 2.2 That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 6Section 69A

account. Since the appellant has already recorded the said cash deposits in his books of account, adding the same again u/s 69A lead to double taxations which is incorrect. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur in the case of Chandra Surana 149 taxmann.com ... same is recorded in books of account. Since it is recorded in the books of account adding again under Section 69A would amount to double taxation. 4.3 We also hold that CIT(A) in the impugned order has rightly placed reliance on Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench decision in case

Karnam Rudrapillai Gunaseharan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-4, Coimbator

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as academic

ITA 45/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 45/Chny/2025 & Sp No: 16/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Karnam Rudrapillai Gunaseharan, Income Tax Officer, 112, Mayflower Sakthi Garden, V. Corporate Ward -4, Nanjundapuram South, Coimbatore. Coimbatore South – 641 036. [Pan: Agxpg-7863-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arul Manian, Ca & Shri. Murugappa Boopathy, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Arul Manian, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 69

opinion that when the sales has been reflected in the books of accounts and offered to tax, adding the same again would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. The cash sales / collections made from debtors/retailers by the assessee have been credited in the :-12-: ITA. No: 45/Chny/2025

Rucha Promoters and Developers Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT CC 6(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5024/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Dcit, Circle – 6(1) M/S Rucha Promoters & Room No. 445, 4Th Developers Pvt Ltd., Floor, Kautilya No. 103/104, 1St Floor, Bhavan, Bkc, Ramsukh House, Shivaji Mumbai – 400051. Nagar, Near Sancheti Hospital, Pune – 411005 Pan/Gir No. Aaecr2605P (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

therefore submitted that the very same disallowance / addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee as well since this would amount to double taxation which is impermissible in law. 9. It is therefore submitted that on the basis of the above submissions, the addition deserves to be deleted

M/S. Khedut Oil Traders, Mumbai vs. I.T.O, -22(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3833/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Khedut Oil Traders Vs. Ito – 22(2)(1) D-403 / Godavari Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers, Sir P.M Road, Off Tilak Road, Lalbaug. Parel Santacruz (W), Mumbai Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk1294J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)

considered the same in the hands of the partner/s not the firm and also disallowance of the income (Remuneration) in the firm leads to double taxation which is bad in law and therefore it has to be accepted as the partner has already shown in his Return of income filed

Mangaldeep Superstructures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, National E Assessment Centre

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

ITA 5797/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhrimangaldeep V/S. Ito, Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Delhi-110001 45 Heeramani Ratanbangur Nagar Goregaon West, Maharashtra-400104 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci771B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Letter fileFor Respondent: Shri. R. R. Makwana
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

respect of share of profit from partnership firm in the order dated 02/10/2019 u/s 143(1). The addition has resulted in double taxation which is not permissible under the Act. The share of profit from partnership firm has already been taxed in hands of Partnership firm. The share of profit ... argued that the addition of share of profit from the partnership firm in the assessee’s hands amounts to double taxation since it has already been taxed in the hands of the partnership firm. Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly relied on the order