<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (7) TMI 1027 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774959</link>
    <description>Dividend Distribution Tax was treated as a tax on the domestic company&#039;s distributed profits, not as a tax paid on behalf of shareholders. On that basis, the dividend article in the India-UK DTAA did not apply to reduce the tax unless the treaty expressly extended protection to DDT. As no such extension was shown, the assessee could not apply the concessional treaty rate under Article 11 or claim refund of the excess tax; the claim was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 12:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=836667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1027 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774959</link>
      <description>Dividend Distribution Tax was treated as a tax on the domestic company&#039;s distributed profits, not as a tax paid on behalf of shareholders. On that basis, the dividend article in the India-UK DTAA did not apply to reduce the tax unless the treaty expressly extended protection to DDT. As no such extension was shown, the assessee could not apply the concessional treaty rate under Article 11 or claim refund of the excess tax; the claim was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>