TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1659
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19-20 on 30.11.2019. During processing u/s 143(1) of the Act the Ld. AO, CPC, Bangalore, disallowed a sum of Rs. 98,18,811/- u/s 43B of the Act on the ground that the employer's contribution towards ESI/PF was delayed. The Ld. Addl./JCIT (Appeals) relied on the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. reported in 448 ITR 518 (SC) to uphold the action of Ld. AO. The second point of dispute was concerning the refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the assessee, which was claimed as a refund on the basis that the beneficial treaty provisions (India-Japan DTAA) permitted such refund. 1.1 The aggrieved assessee approached the ITAT and has filed revised grounds as under: - "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 36(1)(va) of the Act. It was argued by the Ld. AR that the Checkmate Services case (supra) pertained to the employees' contribution and not the employers' contribution. It was pointed out by the Ld. AR that this was a case where the employers' contribution was impugned and was disallowed even when such contributions were deposited before filing of the return of income, as mandated u/s 43B of the Act. 2.1 Regarding the claim of refund of excess DDT, the Ld. AR read out from a synopsis of argument as under: - "Claim for Refund of Excess DDT Paid by Applying Beneficial Treaty Rate under the India-Japan DTAA * The Appellant had specifically raised an additional ground of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) seeking adjudication ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enefit. The refund claim arises only because the company says it paid tax at the domestic rate first, though the treaty capped the tax burden at 10%. * Therefore, raised an additional ground before the CIT(A) seeking refund of this excess DDT, arguing that the treaty benefit should have been extended even in relation to DDT paid on dividend to its Japanese shareholder." The Ld. AR also placed on record several decisions of coordinate benches of ITAT and specifically relied on the case of Intertek India Private Limited in ITA Nos. 2903 & 2904/Del/2025, order dated 07.11.2026. The Ld. AR read out para 6.1 at page 5 of this order in his support as under: - "6.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds distributed by it to its UK parent company to 10 per cent under Article 11. Respectfully following the said decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we direct the Learned AO to refund the excess dividend distribution tax paid by the assessee company. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 4 to 8 raised by the assessee are allowed." 3. The Ld. DR relied on the case of Checkmate Services (supra) and stated that there was no infirmity in the first appellate order. Regarding DDT it was argued by the Ld. DR that the assessee had not claimed this excess in the return of income and had tendered a claim only at first appellate stage. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We have also peruse....