“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

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 761/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

made in original assessment which was of similar nature and once again making an addition of Rs.4,40,00,000/- would result in double taxation. 14 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that addition of Rs.4,40,00,000/-was not made by the AO while ... computing the total income to avoid double taxation of income and not based on principle of telescoping. 15. The Learned CTA) ought to have appreciated the fact that entire amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- was available before AO to telescope against unexplained income/ investment

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 723/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 13/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 12/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1328/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

S.R.P. Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1452/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

appreciate that the appellant had offered the entire Sale Proceeds of Rs.3,45,85,662 under the head Capital Gains' and thus there occurred double taxation of the added sum of Rs.1,90,62,662. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in upholding ... before either of the lower authorities (pages 63 and 64 of paper book). The Ld. AR also averred that the assessee has suffered a double taxation since, the entire sales profit of Rs. 3,45,85,662/- was offered as capital gains and out of this amount

Remfry & Sagar, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed, pro tanto

ITA 1631/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.994/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Kosi Aviation Leasing Ltd., C/O Dmd Advocates, 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi 110013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaick-6199-B बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(1)(2), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 आअसं.1027/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Hoohly Aviation Leasing Ltd., C/O Dmd Advocates, 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi 110013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aafch-6609-C बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(1)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 आअसं.1070/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Luni Aviation Leasing Ltd., C/O Dmd Advocates, 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi 110013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaecl-5180-H बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002

with the Lessees for leasing of aircrafts - Whether Operating lease or Financial lease?; (ii) Applicability of Multilateral Instruments (MLI) vis a vis India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA); 30 ITA No.994/Del/2025 (A.Y.2022-23)& Other Group Appeals (iii) Whether the assesses/appellants are eligible for benefit of Article 8 of India-Ireland ... April 2021 which introduces a substantive limitation by inserting the following words into Section 90(1)(b) of the Act: "...for the avoidance of double taxation of income under this Act and under the corresponding law in force in that country or specified territory, as the case may be, [without

The Ramco Cements Ltd., Rajapalayam vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2144/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2144/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) The Ramco Cements Limited Acit बनाम/ Ramamandiram, Corporate Circle, Vs. Rajapalayam-626 117. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S.Muralidhar & J.Prabhakar (Fcas)- Ld.Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som(Cit) -Ld. Dr

For Appellant: S/Shri S.Muralidhar & J.Prabhakar (FCAs)- Ld.ARsFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som(CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 43BSection 80G

already been disallowed by the assessee and Ld. AO has again added the same to the income of the assessee which amounts to double taxation. From Memo of income as placed on Page Nos. 4 & 5 of the paper-book, it could be seen that the assessee has already added

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpur vs. Nikeshkumar Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2016/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Yashesh Mehta, CA, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

income was subjected to tax at the entity level, taxing the same income in the hands of the partner was unsustainable and resulted in double taxation. CIT(A) relied on Section 10(2A) of the Act, which explicitly exempts a partner's share of profit from an LLP. Section ... therefore the order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act. The DR accepted that the addition in the hands of assessee amounts to double taxation. 6. The Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee, by way of written submission, submitted that the tax effect in present appeal is Rs.52

Asok Boral, Murshidabad vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 42, Murshidabad

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

ITA 1623/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1623/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Asok Boral,………………………….....…………Appellant Raghunathganj-1, Dist. Murshidabad-742225, West Bengal [Pan:Adbpb7452K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Circle-42, Murshidabad, Aayakar Bhawan, 57, R.N. Tagore Road, Baharampore, Murshidabad-742101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri S. Das Sharma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 44A

Asok Boral Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under section 143(1), made disallowance/addition twice, therefore, it is nothing but a double taxation. He further submitted that all the income as mentioned in the Tax Audit Report were declared and shown under different heads of income, which was even

DCIT, CC-2(1), Bengaluru vs. Chaitanya Properties Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

ITA 1158/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP and Shri Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

Consequently, any addition on account of the JDA in the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y. 2011-12, would amount to double taxation. 9. Similarly, the Bench remanded the issue of the addition made under section 14A of the Act to the file of the learned CIT(A) for reconsideration

M/S. Slk Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range-6N, Bangalore

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

ITA 933/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 14A

authority has not provided a detailed reasoning while addressing the assessee’s arguments or the findings of the AO regarding the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and the applicability of section 195 and Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the CIT(A) has passed

M/S. Slk Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 932/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 14A

Asia Investment Corporation (Mauritius) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 2766/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(b)Section 69Section 74

outside India, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more

Asia Investment Corporation (Mauritius ) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 2765/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(b)Section 69Section 74

Sukriti Information Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed, pro tanto

ITA 1515/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Subodh Gupta, Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-

ITA 955/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

consideration. As rightly pointed out by the ld AR, this would completely disturb the financial structure of the assessee and would indeed result in double taxation. The assessee has been consistently offering 1/40th of the life membership fee as its revenue hence, effectively only is a question of timing difference

Smt. Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution

ITA 2426/AHD/2016[2008-0]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2426/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09 Smt.Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt The I.T.O. Ward 14 (2) बनाम/ 301, A Devprit Apartment Ahmedabad V/S. Nr.Bodakdev Cross Road Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adtpb 9174 C (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 09.08.2016, For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Arising Out Of The Reassessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Ward- 14(2), Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”), Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 68Section 69

ground of property income of Rs.7,39,541/- treated as income from other sources by the AO, which has also resulted in double taxation. 6. That the learned CIT (A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of claim of deduction

Indraprastha Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Sangli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -5, Sangli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 184/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.184/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Indraprastha Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Patsanstha Ltd., Islampur, Walwa, Sangli- 415409. Pan : Aaaai0626B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Revenue By : Shri Uma Shankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: It Is A Recalled Matter. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.03.2022 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Modified Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground No. 1: Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) / Nfac Is Erred In Disallowing Deduction U/S 80P Of Rs. 65,81,336/-.

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad

Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

whereas same is already considered in Net profit and in gross total income. This addition is resulting as a double taxation. Ground No. 4: The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, revise, substitute, delete or alter any/all of the above grounds of appeal if deemed necessary ... assessee co-operative society is subject to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) & 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act and it will be double taxation if the whole of the credit entry is added back in the income of the assessee. 7. Ld. DR appearing from the side

Lila Tejpal Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 5927/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

cannot be separately made to both the joint holder of property and it will amounts to double taxation.” 5.1 The Ld. Commissioner therefore by observing “that during the course of appellate proceedings, no additional ground(s) of appeal was/were taken by the Assessee and no additional evidence was filed”, ultimately ... above shortcomings, the demand for such property is in not at par with other standard properties hence the valuation is below the standard. 3) Double taxation: - Property for which notice was served is a joint property. Notice was served to both the person and at the end same income