“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

Green Maiden A 2013, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1986/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri Hardik Nirmal/ MsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 153Section 61Section 63

earned by GMT (being revocable trust) is exempt from tax in India as per section 61 read with Article 24 of the India - UAE Tax Treaty. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in taxing the entire income ... should be considered as the income of the transferor ie. ADIA b) as per Article 24 of the India - UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('Tax Treaty') the said interest income is exempt from tax in India in the hands of ADIA c) accordingly, by virtue of provisions of specific provisions

DCIT (It)-1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Avana Global Fzco, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2214/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Respondent: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Hardik

erred in not adjudicating the ground that the assessee does not have a fixed place PB in India under Article 5(1) of the tax treaty? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground ... Relevant extracts of the Hon'ble Tribunal for AY 2016-17: ......... 4. The Assessing Officer thus proceeded to decline the Indo UAE tax treaty benefit in respect of the freight receipts of Rs. 216,00,95,105/- and the resultant tax liability of Rs. 16,20,07,132/-. The assessee

M/S. Ceva Freight Llc, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1264/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

from CEVA Freight India Pvt Ltd ("India affiliate" or "CEVA India") as Fees for Included services ("FTS/ FIS"), under Article 12 of India USA Tax Treaty ("Tax Treaty") by not appreciating: • that such functions do not 'make available' any technical knowledge, skills, expertise etc to the India affiliate; • judicial precedents

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Int. Taxational 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 749/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailedenred Pte Ltd., C/O. Walker Chandiok & Co. Llp, 16Th Floor, Tower Lll, One International Center, S B Marg, Prabhadevi (West), ............... Appellant Mumbai-400013. Pan : Aacce8636P V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – International Taxation -2(2)(1), Room No. 606, 6Th Floor, ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Singh/Ms. Shivali Mhatre Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh/Ms. Shivali MhatreFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

India-Singapore DTAA. In M/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (supra) for AY 2016-17, the Tribunal observes that though the India-Singapore Tax Treaty is amended by Notification No. SO 935(E) dated 23.03.2017, however, the definition of 'royalty' therein has not been tinkered with and remains as such

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1441/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

assessee made an application for rectification under section 154 of the Act on the ground that as per the above judgment the benefit of tax treaty is available to the assessee and that the impugned receipts are not taxable in India as per Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1405/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1404/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1403/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

Sumukh Suresh Bhardwaj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 935/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Veerabasanagouda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

income.” 4. The Assessee claimed FTC of Rs. 4,73,779/- u/s. 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of India Australia tax treaty (“DTAA”) in a revised return of income filed on 31.8.2018. The Assessee had not filed the Form 67 before filing the return of income ... 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, the same cannot be disallowed for mere delay in compliance of a procedural provision. 14. The learned DR reiterated the stand of the revenue

Amadeus It Group Sa, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Civic Center

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

ITA 1494/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT- DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vi)

travel agents through which sales are conducted, constituted fixed place PE of the assessee in India under Article 5(1) of the India-Spain Tax Treaty. Further, the Assessing Officer also held the assessee to be dependent agency PE in terms of paragraph 5(4) of the India Spain Tax

Nanda Kishore Ravula, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Tax)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nanda Kishore Ravula Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Tax)-2 [Pan :Agupr0664F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/06/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.01.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020- 21 On 15.12.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,08,11,550/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income On 30.03.2021 & Claimed Foreign Tax Credit (“Ftc”) Of 2 Nanda Kishore Ravula

For Appellant: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 91

override the provisions of the Income Tax Act and thus denial of vested right to claim the FTC is in direct infringement of the tax treaty. 8. Rule 128 (8) and (9) provides that the credit for any foreign tax shall be allowed on furnishing of Form

DCIT(It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Singapore

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1453/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

computer software and does not give rise to any income taxable in India in the hands of such non- resident recipient under the Tax Treaty (including the India-Singapore Tax Treaty, as applicable in the present case). It has been claimed that the aforesaid ruling is squarely applicable ... licensees / Indian customers and the income earned is not in the nature of Royalty as per the beneficial provisions of India-Singapore Tax Treaty. To substantiate this claim, the Appellant has submitted a brief summary (as quoted above) of the relevant clauses of sample agreement of Murex with Indian customer

Mr. 3 Sigma Global Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the gain arising from the transfer of Derivatives cannot be taxed in India and the addition made in this regard stands deleted. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is hereb...

ITA 1130/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Bhaumik Goda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer has not examined the eligibility of the claims of the Applicant in the hands of the beneficial owners, as per relevant Tax Treaties. Such an application of the beneficial ownership concept, and without enquiry into the substance of the Applicant Company (FPI) does not meet the standard ... Treaty. Having not been able to dispel the Treaty immunity to the applicant assessee, the Assessing Officer is bound by the provisions of the Tax Treaty. Hence, the Panel has no alternative but to reject the simplistic approach of the Assessing Officer, adopted sans enquiry, and by merely using

Essar Communications Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle-1 (2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG

Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

facts of the relevant year alone, as upheld by various judicial precedents; Denying the benefits of Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius tax treaty (tax treaty') to the Appellant 6. erred in holding that the Appellant was not entitled to the benefits of Article 13(4) of the tax treaty ... Mauritius, holds tax residence certificates, global business license etc and that the Appellant was entitled to the benefits of Article 13(4) of the tax treaty; 8. erred in disregarding settled law based on various judicial precedents in this regard; 9. erred in not following the Central Board of Direct

Essar Com Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 339/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG

Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

facts of the relevant year alone, as upheld by various judicial precedents; Denying the benefits of Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius tax treaty (tax treaty’) to the Appellant erred in holding that the Appellant was not entitled to the benefits of Article 13(4) of the tax treaty ... Mauritius, holds tax residence certificates, global business license etc and that the Appellant was entitled to the benefits of Article 13(4) of the tax treaty; erred in disregarding settled law based on various judicial precedents in this regard; erred in not following the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2129/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora; Shri Lekh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 244ASection 44B

after claiming the benefit of the Article 8 of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Honk Kong SAR (for short `Tax Treaty'] read with Section 90(2) and Section 44B of the Act in respect of the income from operation of ships. Section ... case may be, by way of demurrage charges or handling charges or any other amount of similar nature.” (Emphasis Supplied) Article 8 of the Tax Treaty provides that profits of an enterprise of a Contracting Party derived in the other Contracting Party from the operation of ships in international traffic

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) - Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1092/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9(1)(i)

permanent establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5(1) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India and Ireland (India-Ireland Tax Treaty). 5. Ground 5 The learned AO has, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, and based on the directions ... that RGA Services constitutes a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment of the Appellant in India in terms of Article 5(6) of the India-Ireland Tax Treaty by alleging that RGA Services is an agent which exercises indirect authority to negotiate and enter into contracts for and on behalf

Emerging India Focus Funds, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 1963/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

mutual fund units. Accordingly, where the intention was to tax gains on units of mutual fund, the same has been expressly provided in certain tax treaties. • Further, the Assessee submits that redemption of units of mutual fund cannot be considered as sale of shares of a company and hence, shall ... DTAA should be given an interpretation in which the reasonable meaning of words and phrases is preferred. Principles or rules of interpretation of a tax treaty would be relevant only where terms or words used in treaties are ambiguous, vague or are such that different meanings are possible. If words

Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Ltd, Malaysia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), Civic Center, Delhi

ITA 3370/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 194L

which pertained to interest earned on CCDs/OCDs, was offered to tax @ 15% as prescribed under Article 11 of India-Singapore Tax Treaty. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO denied the benefit of Section 194LD of the Act on the premise that section 194LD of the Act provides a lower

Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. The Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

ITA 2417/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Vs Acit, Ltd., Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), #02-00, Robinson Road, New Delhi. Singapore – 688898 Pan: Aadci8182P Assessment Year: 2021-22 Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Vs. Acit, Ltd., Malaysia, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), Level 56, Tower-1, Petronas New Delhi. Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur City Centre, 50088, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia/ 6Th Floor, Emaar Mgf, The Palm Square, Golf Course Ext. Road, Sector-66, Gurgaon – 122 102. Pan: Aadci8182P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate & Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 115A(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 194LSection 3

which pertained to interest earned on CCDs/ OCDs, was offered to tax @ 15% as prescribed under Article 11 of India-Singapore Tax Treaty. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO denied the benefit of Section 194LD of the Act on the premise that section 194LD of the Act provides