← All Phrases

“tax treaty”

Chapter X-A - GAARSection 102(11)Section 102(11)1,494 judgments

The decision most relied on for tax treaty is Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), cited in 691 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on tax treaty

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan
263 ITR 706 · 2003 · Supreme Court
691
citing judgments

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

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.

India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India
341 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
295
citing judgments

Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT
95 ITD 269 · 2005 · High Court
213
citing judgments

Revenue must demonstrate the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise in India, including establishing that transactions underlying a Dependent Agent PE were not at arm's length. Income from the sale of goods is not taxable in India if title and risk in the goods pass outside India.

(i) Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT
394 ITR 80 · 2017 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

This case provides foundational principles that illuminate the contours of the concept of 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) under tax treaties, especially regarding a 'fixed place' PE.

DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd.
346 ITR 504 · 2012 · High Court
171
citing judgments

For fees for technical services to be taxable under a tax treaty's 'make available' clause, a transfer of technology enabling the recipient to independently perform the service in the future is necessary, beyond mere service rendition. The case also clarifies that re-insurance services do not constitute 'imparting' of information taxable as royalty.

Judgments citing tax treaty

M/S Grob-Werke Gmbh & Co. Kg, Germany vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl Txn Circle, Vizag, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 176/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2022-23) Vs. M/S. Grob – Werke Gmbh & Co. Kg Acit Industriestrasse 4, 87719 Mindelheim International Taxation Circle Income Tax Office Germany, Pincode - 87719 Infinity Towers Sankaramatam Road [Pan:Aaifg4270G] Visakhapatnam - 530016 करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Nikhil Ajit Mutha, Ca : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025

Section 115ASection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195

followed. 2. Ground 2: Entitlement to the benefit under Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation with Germany ('India-Germany Tax Treaty'): In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in affirming the Ld AO's position that the Appellant is not entitled ... beneficial provisions of India-Germany Tax Treaty, thereby assessing the Appellant at the tax rate provided under the provisions of section 115A instead of Article 12 of the India-Germany Tax Treaty, resulting into additional demand of INR 46,38,382/-considering applicability of surcharge and cess under the provisions

Bcp IV India Pll Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax - Int Tax Circle 1(2)(2), Mumbai / ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Mumbai

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 710/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: & Ms. Hinal Shah, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 194LSection 251Section 90Section 90(2)

rate of 15% u/s 90(2) of the Act read with Article 11(2)(b) of the India Singapore Tax Treaty and the same was processed by the CPC u/s 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act was filed by the assessee

Bcp IV India Pll Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Int Tax Circle 1(2)(2), Mumbai / ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Mumbai

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 709/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: & Ms. Hinal Shah, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 194LSection 251Section 90Section 90(2)

rate of 15% u/s 90(2) of the Act read with Article 11(2)(b) of the India Singapore Tax Treaty and the same was processed by the CPC u/s 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act was filed by the assessee

Anuvu Uk Operations Ltd (Earlier Knows As Global Eagle Entertainment Limited), London vs. ACIT, Circle-Int.Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 806/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1879 और 1878/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19 और 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & Ms. Shruti Khimta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

done away with the requirement of process being secret. Howeover, the AO failed to appreciate that there is no corresponding change in India-UK Tax Treaty, wherein, the wordings are still the same, i.e. "consideration for the use of _ _ _ _ _ _ secret formula or process". The word ‘secret’ qualifies ‘process’ for treaty

Anuvu Uk Operations Limited (Earlier Known As Global Eagle Entertainment Limited), United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Int Tax Circle 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3338/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1879 और 1878/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19 और 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & Ms. Shruti Khimta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

done away with the requirement of process being secret. Howeover, the AO failed to appreciate that there is no corresponding change in India-UK Tax Treaty, wherein, the wordings are still the same, i.e. "consideration for the use of _ _ _ _ _ _ secret formula or process". The word ‘secret’ qualifies ‘process’ for treaty

Anuvu Uk Operations Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Global Eagle Entertainment Limited), London vs. ACIT, Int. Tax. 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1879/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1879 और 1878/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19 और 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & Ms. Shruti Khimta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

done away with the requirement of process being secret. Howeover, the AO failed to appreciate that there is no corresponding change in India-UK Tax Treaty, wherein, the wordings are still the same, i.e. "consideration for the use of _ _ _ _ _ _ secret formula or process". The word ‘secret’ qualifies ‘process’ for treaty

Anuvu Uk Operations Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Global Eagle Entertainment Limited), London vs. ACIT, Int. Tax. 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1878/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1879 और 1878/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19 और 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & Ms. Shruti Khimta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

done away with the requirement of process being secret. Howeover, the AO failed to appreciate that there is no corresponding change in India-UK Tax Treaty, wherein, the wordings are still the same, i.e. "consideration for the use of _ _ _ _ _ _ secret formula or process". The word ‘secret’ qualifies ‘process’ for treaty

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2022-

ITA 558/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 558/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 & S.A. No.: 50/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.558/Chny/2025] धनिाजरण वर्ज/Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krisnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

annual maintenance charges being not ancillary or subsidiary to any royalty income cannot be brought to tax under Article 12(4)(a) of the tax treaty. Therefore, it has to be seen, whether it can come within the purview of Article 12(4)(b) of the tax treaty. As could ... seen, to be considered as FIS under Article 12(4)(b) under the tax treaty, the make available condition has to be satisfied. In the facts of the present appeal, the Departmental Authorities have failed to demonstrate that while rendering the services, the assessee had made available technical knowledge, experience

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP, Mumbai

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

ITA 2723/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth and Ms. Darshana Shah, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

issue of certificate shall not in any way prejudice the assessment of total income under the provisions of Income tax r.w. India-UK tax treaty.” 4 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP Assessment Year 2019-20 5. Ld. CIT (A) following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case ... royalty as contained in clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) or under article 11(3)(a) of the India-UK tax treaty. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions : “a. CIT vs. HEG Ltd. 263 ITR 230 (MP) In this case

Metso Oyj, Finland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the order of the Ld

ITA 616/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 56Section 9

India as ‘other income’ under Article 23(3) of the India-France DTAA (analogous to the provisions of Article 21 of the said Tax Treaty 38. In view of above, it is humbly submitted that the guarantee fee earned by the Appellant from MIPL/MOIPL is not taxable in India

Adp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 975/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 195Section 234ASection 40Section 92C

ground that, income of ADP, Australia is not taxable in India either under domestic tax law or under India-Australia Tax Treaty. The Assessing Officer disallowed foreign remittances of Rs.63,16,47,709/- to ADP, Australia for business support services without deducting TDS u/sec.195 of the Act on the ground ... resident or foreign company only where the sum is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act read with the applicable tax treaty. The appellant-company did not deduct taxes u/sec.195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that, the said receipt was not taxable in India

Bain and Company, Usa vs. DCIT, Gurgoan

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3056/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)

claimed as non-taxable) 6. The Assessee offered the royalty receipt as taxable income under the provision of the India- US Tax Treaty (DTAA) read with Section 115A of the Income-tax Act, 1961(Act). The other receipts were not offered to tax due to the availability of treaty benefit ... understand the true import of the expression of technical or consultancy, it is necessary to refer to the Memorandum of Understanding to the Tax Treaty. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, Article Page 12 of 28 ITA No. 1677/DEL/2023 [A.Y 2020-21] ITA No. 3056/DEL/2023[A.Y 2021-22] Bain

Bain & Company, Inc., Usa vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation Circle, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1677/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)

claimed as non-taxable) 6. The Assessee offered the royalty receipt as taxable income under the provision of the India- US Tax Treaty (DTAA) read with Section 115A of the Income-tax Act, 1961(Act). The other receipts were not offered to tax due to the availability of treaty benefit ... understand the true import of the expression of technical or consultancy, it is necessary to refer to the Memorandum of Understanding to the Tax Treaty. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, Article Page 12 of 28 ITA No. 1677/DEL/2023 [A.Y 2020-21] ITA No. 3056/DEL/2023[A.Y 2021-22] Bain

Lahmeyer International Gmbh, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 784/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Satyam Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

International India Private Limited ('LII') as per the provisions of Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany ('India Germany Tax Treaty'). Page 2 of 20 ITA No. 5634/DEL/2012 & 784/DEL/2014 Lahmeyer International [A.Y 2009-10 & 2010-11] 2. Without prejudice, attributing the revenues earned ... Kashmir State Power Development Corporation Baglihar Construction Services ('JKSPDC') by applying the rule of 'Force of Attraction' envisaged under the provisions of India- Germany Tax Treaty. 3. Levying interest under section 234A, section 234B and section 234C of the Act. 4 Initiating penalty proceedings under section

M/S. Lahmeyer International Gmbh, Germany vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5634/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Satyam Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

International India Private Limited ('LII') as per the provisions of Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany ('India Germany Tax Treaty'). Page 2 of 20 ITA No. 5634/DEL/2012 & 784/DEL/2014 Lahmeyer International [A.Y 2009-10 & 2010-11] 2. Without prejudice, attributing the revenues earned ... Kashmir State Power Development Corporation Baglihar Construction Services ('JKSPDC') by applying the rule of 'Force of Attraction' envisaged under the provisions of India- Germany Tax Treaty. 3. Levying interest under section 234A, section 234B and section 234C of the Act. 4 Initiating penalty proceedings under section

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-3(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 29/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195

taxability of the commission agent's income in India in terms of the provisions of the Income Tax Act as also the relevant tax treaty provisions. 42. In view of these discussions, we uphold the relief" Therefore, learned CIT(A) held that on both, factual as well as legal counts ... observed that the assessee has not furnished tax residency certificates. In any event, according to the Assessing Officer, the India Thailand and India UAE tax treaties did not have any specific clause dealing with the fees for technical services, and, in the absence of such a provision, this income

Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT/DCIT, International Taxation-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 366/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.366/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 V. Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of #25-60, Tong Eng Building, 101, Cecil Income Tax, International Street, Singapore 069533. Taxation, Dcit, Intl. Tax 1(2), C/O. Bothra Shipping Services Private Chennai. Limited, Vasundhara, 9Th Floor, Unit-A, 2/7 Sarat Bose Road, L.R. Sarani S.O., Kalkata, West Bengal 700 020. [Pan: Aadcj0165F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 44B

India and further such income is taxable in country of residence on receipt basis. The AO, referring to Article 24 of the tax treaty, was of the opinion that although global shipping income of a Singapore tax resident is taxable only at resident State, but by virtue of Article ... amount repatriated/ remitted to Singapore. In our view, the above conclusion of the AO is under the misconception of the provisions of India-Singapore tax treaty, because as per Article 8 of India-Singapore tax treaty, it was clearly specified that only the resident country has the right of taxation

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Evry India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 948/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 244ASection 90

procedural provision. As the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, the Assessee has vested right to claim the FTC under the tax treaty and the same cannot be disallowed for mere delay in compliance of a procedural provision. Therefore, the AO is directed to consider the claim

Tfdac Ireland II Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 4(1)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1198/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

first substantive question that arises for our consideration and adjudication, the applicability of Articles 6 and 7 of the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (hereinafter, “MLI”) vis-à-vis the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). Learned Senior Counsel ... DTAAs in the light of subsequently negotiated DTAAs with other OECD member states, laid down, in categorical terms, that “the consequences of a subsequent tax treaty on an earlier tax treaty must be separately notified, otherwise the earlier tax treaty continues to remain in force unaltered and unaffected

Dae(Sy22) Leasing (Ireland)41, Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1157/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

first substantive question that arises for our consideration and adjudication, the applicability of Articles 6 and 7 of the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (hereinafter, “MLI”) vis-à-vis the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). Learned Senior Counsel ... DTAAs in the light of subsequently negotiated DTAAs with other OECD member states, laid down, in categorical terms, that “the consequences of a subsequent tax treaty on an earlier tax treaty must be separately notified, otherwise the earlier tax treaty continues to remain in force unaltered and unaffected