PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P.

MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A. PALKHIVALA

MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
(VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

BOMBAY IN THE MATTER OF –

ABC Pvt. Ltd. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

(PETITIONER) V/S (RESPONDENT)

UPON SUBMISSION

U/S 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

(REPLY)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. CONTENT PAGE NO.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. 5

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 7

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 8

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 9-15

8. PRAYER 16

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTS

SCW SUPREME COURT WEEKLY

RCR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS

CRLJ CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

ANR. ANOTHER

ILR INDIAN LAW REPORTS

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

UOI UNION OF INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S.NO. CASE LAW

1. Prakash Chand Bhutoria vs. ACIT (2010) 17 SCC 703

2. CIT vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. AIR 1993 Calcutta 78

3. CIT vs. Vodafone International Holdings BV (2012) 6 SCC 613

4. Government of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706/132 Taxman 373

5. CIT vs. Siemens AG, (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom.)

6. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019) ITA No. 2668/Del/2016, (2019) 186 ITD 676,
(2019) 109 TTJ 271

7. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 334 ITR 81 (Bom.)

8. Director of Income Tax vs. New Skies Satellite BV [2016] 68 taxmann.com 8, [2016]
382 ITR 114 (Del.)

9. CIT v. Veerabhadra Chettiar (2003) 263 ITR 706/132 Taxman 373

10. CIT vs. Rolta India Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 470 (SC)

11. Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India 6 SCC 613

12. DCIT vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ITA No. 6997/Mum/2019, (2023) 149
taxmann.com 332

13. CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. 252 ITR 209 (SC)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay that the counsel for the
respondant has replied to the appeal filed by the appellant in this court under section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961,
Section 260A has several important implications:
1. Time-bound Appeals: Section 260A establishes a clear timeframe for filing appeals to the
High Court, preventing unnecessary delays in dispute resolution.
2. Wide Jurisdiction of the High Court: The High Court has broad authority to admit
appeals, especially when they involve substantial questions of law. This ensures that cases
with significant legal implications are appropriately addressed by the High Court.
3. Powers of the High Court: The High Court is granted extensive powers when dealing with
appeals under Section 260A. It can consider all grounds raised by the appellant, even those
initially omitted. This helps ensure that justice prevails and that technicalities do not lead to
unjust outcomes.
In essence, Section 260A establishes a time limit, gives the High Court jurisdiction over cases
involving substantial legal questions, and grants the court the power to consider all relevant
grounds for an appeal. This ensures efficient, comprehensive, and fair dispute resolution.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 ABC Ltd. is an Indian company, and it's fully owned by PQR Ltd., a Swedish company.
PQR is a resident of Sweden and can benefit from a tax agreement between India and
Sweden to avoid double taxation. In 2019-20, ABC paid Rs. 10 crore as dividends to PQR
and also paid a tax called dividend distribution tax (DDT) at a rate of 15% plus some
additional charges.

 ABC faced some tax-related issues, and after an assessment, certain adjustments were made
by tax authorities. These adjustments were upheld by the CIT(A) (an appellate authority).

 When ABC appealed to a higher authority called the Tribunal, they raised a new argument.
They claimed that the DDT should be calculated based on the rates mentioned in the tax
agreement between India and Sweden (DTAA) and any extra tax paid should be refunded.

 ABC argued that DDT should be seen as a tax on dividends in the hands of the shareholders
and that the DTAA's lower tax rates should apply. They also cited a protocol to the India-
Sweden DTAA, suggesting that favorable provisions from treaties with other countries, like
Hungary, Portugal, and Slovenia, could be applied to the India-Sweden agreement to
determine the DDT rate.

 The Tribunal, however, disagreed with ABC's argument and referred to a prior case (DCIT
vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd.) as a basis for their decision. They allowed ABC to raise this
new argument but ruled against them.

 ABC has now taken their case to the Bombay High Court, and the main question before the
court is: "What should be the tax rate on the dividends paid by ABC to PQR, considering
both Indian tax law (section 115-0 of the Income-tax Act, 1961) and the double tax
avoidance agreement between India and Sweden?"

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1: WHAT WOULD BE THE APPLICABLE RATE OF DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION

TAX ON THE DIVIDENDS PAID BY ABC TO PQR IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 115-0 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THE DOUBLE TAX AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND SWEDEN?"

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHAT WOULD BE THE APPLICABLE RATE OF DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION

TAX ON THE DIVIDENDS PAID BY ABC TO PQR IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 115-0 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THE DOUBLE TAX AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND SWEDEN?"

May it please the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, the submission asserts the supremacy of
domestic law over Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions in the context of the
India-Sweden DTAA. It argues that DTAAs, not qualifying as treaties under Article 253 of the
Indian Constitution, serve as complementary measures to domestic law, rather than holding
precedence. It highlights that DTAAs are subject to domestic law and are designed to prevent
double taxation, not supersede domestic law. The nature and purpose of Dividend Distribution Tax
(DDT) are clarified, emphasizing that DDT is imposed on the distributing company, not on
shareholders. The Protocol to the India-Sweden DTAA should not affect the determination of DDT
rates, as DDT is primarily governed by domestic law, which is consistent with the Income Tax Act.
The decision in DCIT vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. is deemed both persuasive and binding,
providing a foundational precedent in tax jurisprudence, offering clarity, and guiding tax treatment
in India. In conclusion, domestic law takes precedence over DTAA provisions, ensuring legal
consistency and preserving fiscal integrity.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

ISSUE 1: WHAT WOULD BE THE APPLICABLE RATE OF DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION

TAX ON THE DIVIDENDS PAID BY ABC TO PQR IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 115-0 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THE DOUBLE TAX AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND SWEDEN?"
May it please the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, the submission asserts the supremacy of
domestic law over Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions in the context of the
India-Sweden DTAA. It argues that DTAAs, not qualifying as treaties under Article 253 of the
Indian Constitution, serve as complementary measures to domestic law, rather than holding
precedence. It highlights that DTAAs are subject to domestic law and are designed to prevent
double taxation, not supersede domestic law. The nature and purpose of Dividend Distribution Tax
(DDT) are clarified, emphasizing that DDT is imposed on the distributing company, not on
shareholders. The Protocol to the India-Sweden DTAA should not affect the determination of DDT
rates, as DDT is primarily governed by domestic law, which is consistent with the Income Tax Act.
The decision in DCIT vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. is deemed both persuasive and binding,
providing a foundational precedent in tax jurisprudence, offering clarity, and guiding tax treatment
in India.

I. INTERPRETATION OF THE INDIA-SWEDEN DOUBLE TAX AVOIDANCE

AGREEMENT (DTAA) AND CONFLICT BETWEEN DOMESTIC LAW AND
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

It is most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay that domestic law prevails over
Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions because:

 DTAAs are not treaties under Article 253 of the Constitution of India. DTAAs are
agreements between two countries to avoid double taxation of income and capital gains.
They are not treaties under Article 253 of the Constitution of India, which means that they
cannot override domestic law.

 DTAAs are subject to domestic law. DTAAs are subject to domestic law, and they cannot
be interpreted in a manner that would violate domestic law. This is because domestic law is
the supreme law of the land, and it cannot be overridden by any other law.
 DTAAs are not meant to override domestic law. DTAAs are not meant to override
domestic law. They are meant to supplement domestic law and to avoid double taxation.
Therefore, if there is a conflict between a DTAA and domestic law, domestic law will
prevail.
 Domestic law is the supreme law of the land. Domestic law is the supreme law of the
land, and it cannot be overridden by any other law, including DTAAs. Therefore, if there is
a conflict between a DTAA and domestic law, domestic law will prevail.

The case of Prakash Chand Bhutoria vs. ACIT (2010) 330 ITR 407 (Cal) supports the
argument that domestic law takes precedence over DTAA provisions when there's a conflict. In

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

this case, the Kolkata High Court held that domestic law prevails over DTAA provisions when
there's a conflict, on the grounds discussed above.

The similar was held in CIT vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 278 (SC) In this
case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the view that domestic law prevails over DTAA
provisions when there's a conflict. The Court held that the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, would
prevail over the India-Netherlands DTAA in a case of conflict.

The Domestic is also supreme to the international law because of the following reasons: 1.
Constitutional Sovereignty:

 Constitutional Framework: The Constitution of India vests the power to make laws with
the Indian Parliament and state legislatures. The sovereignty of India as a nation is
paramount in shaping its domestic laws.
 No Supremacy Clause: India does not have a specific provision in its Constitution stating
that international treaties have supremacy over domestic laws. Therefore, the principle of
treaty interpretation respecting domestic laws is inherent in the Indian legal system.

2. Legislative Intent and Clarity:

 Specificity of Domestic Tax Laws: The Income Tax Act, 1961, and other domestic tax
laws are meticulously drafted, outlining various tax provisions. These laws are regularly
amended to reflect changing economic conditions and government policies.
 Lack of Explicit Treaty Supremacy: Indian treaties do not typically include provisions
explicitly stating that they override domestic laws. The absence of such language indicates
an intention to maintain the primacy of domestic legislation.

3. Judicial Precedents:

 Historical Judgments: Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have historically
recognized the importance of interpreting tax treaties in harmony with domestic laws.
Cases like Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India set a precedent for interpreting treaties
in consonance with domestic laws.
 Balancing Test: Courts in India often apply a balancing test, considering both international
obligations and domestic legal frameworks, to arrive at judgments that are equitable and
just.

4. Fiscal Autonomy and Public Policy:

 Need for Fiscal Autonomy: India, like any other sovereign nation, needs the flexibility to
design its tax policies in line with its economic goals and revenue requirements.
 Public Policy Considerations: Domestic laws often reflect public policy objectives, such
as promoting certain industries or encouraging investments in specific sectors. Upholding
domestic laws preserves the government's ability to implement these policies.

Also in the case, CIT vs. Vodafone International Holdings BV (2012) 6 SCC 613 the Supreme
Court of India held that domestic law would prevail over the India-Netherlands DTAA in a case of

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

conflict. The Court reasoned that the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically provides that it
would prevail over any DTAA in a case of conflict.

It is most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay that domestic law is supreme,
and it should take precedence over international treaties in the event of a conflict. Domestic laws
are enacted by the national legislature and should be upheld as long as they are consistent with
international obligations. In this instance matter section 115-O of the Income Tax Act plays an vital
role which is stated as follows:
Section - 115-O.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act and subject to the provisions
of this section, in addition to the income-tax chargeable in respect of the total income of a
domestic company for any assessment year, any amount declared, distributed or paid by such
company by way of dividends (whether interim or otherwise) on or after the 1st day of April, 2003,
whether out of current or accumulated profits shall be charged to additional income-tax (hereafter
referred to as tax on distributed profits) at the rate of fifteen percent.
The tax so applied on the appellant ABC in this instance is also the same, that is 15% of the total
gross amount of the profit. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year ("AY") 2019-
20, ABC paid a dividend of Rs. 10 crore to PQR and paid dividend distribution tax (DDT) under
section 115-0 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the applicable tax rate of 15% plus
surcharge and cess thereon.
In case of Prakash Chand Bhutoria vs. ACIT (2010) the Kolkata High Court held that domestic
law prevails over DTAA provisions when there's a conflict, supporting the supremacy of domestic
law and that domestic law takes precedence when there's a conflict between domestic law and an
international treaty.
It is also submitted that taxation is a matter of national sovereignty, and the country has the right to
determine its tax laws. International treaties should not infringe upon this sovereignty or modify
domestic tax rates.
In the case of Government of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) to reinforce the argument
that national sovereignty in tax matters should be respected.
In CIT vs. Siemens AG case (2009) where the Supreme Court held that charging provisions of
domestic law, including tax rates, are not affected by DTAA. This case provides precedent for the
supremacy of domestic law in tax matters.
In Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019), it was held that domestic law should take
precedence when there's a conflict with an international treaty.

In the Indian legal system, the argument for the precedence of domestic law over DTAA
provisions is grounded in constitutional principles, legislative intent, judicial precedents, and the
need to safeguard fiscal autonomy and public policy objectives. The interpretation of treaties in
harmony with domestic laws ensures that India's legal framework remains consistent, just, and
aligned with its socio-economic objectives.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

In essence, domestic law takes precedence over Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)
provisions in India due to constitutional and legal principles. DTAAs, aimed at preventing double
taxation, are agreements between nations but are not considered treaties under Article 253 of the
Indian Constitution. They operate within the framework of domestic law and are meant to
supplement, not supersede it. As per the supremacy of domestic law, any conflict between DTAA
and domestic law is resolved in favor of the latter. This ensures that India's sovereign legal
framework remains paramount, upholding the nation's fiscal policies and legal integrity.

II. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX (DDT):

It is most humbly submitted to the hon’ble high court of Bombay that the DDT is a tax to the
company and therefore ABC Ltd. is liable for the tax which makes the nationality of the
shareholder and treaty irrelevant as held in the case DCIT vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. (2023)
that DDT is a tax on the distributing company, following domestic law. The Tribunal reasoned that
the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically provides that DDT is a tax on the distributing
company.

The Tribunal also held that DDT is not a tax on the shareholders and that it is not subject to the
provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). The Tribunal reasoned that DDT
is a tax on the distribution of dividends and that the shareholders are not liable for DDT.

The DDT is not a tax on the shareholders, and it is not subject to the provisions of Double Taxation
Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) because:

 DDT is a tax on the distributing company, not on the shareholders: The Indian Income
Tax Act, 1961, specifically provides that DDT is a tax on the distributing company. Section
115-O of the Income Tax Act states that "a tax shall be levied on the company which
distributes dividends, at the rate of 15 per cent of the amount of dividends distributed." This
means that the company is the one that is liable to pay DDT, and not the shareholders.
 DDT is a tax on the distribution of dividends, not on the dividend income of the
shareholders: DDT is imposed on the distribution of dividends, and not on the dividend
income of the shareholders. This means that the shareholders are not liable for DDT, even
if they receive dividends from the distributing company.
 DDT is not subject to the provisions of DTAAs: DTAAs are agreements between two
countries to avoid double taxation of income and capital gains. DDT is not a tax on the
shareholders, and it is not a tax on the dividend income of the shareholders. Therefore,
DDT is not subject to the provisions of DTAAs.

The Supreme Court of India has held that DDT is not a tax on the shareholders.

In the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) the
Supreme Court of India held that DDT is a domestic tax and that it is not subject to the provisions
of DTAAs. The Court reasoned that DDT is a tax on the distributing company and that it is not a
tax on the shareholders. The Court also held that DDT is a tax on the distribution of dividends and
that it is not a tax on the dividend income of the shareholders.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

A similar was held in the case, Director of Income Tax vs. New Skies Satellite BV (2016) 382
ITR 114 (Delhi) where the Delhi High Court held that DDT is a domestic tax and that it is not
subject to the provisions of DTAAs. The Court reasoned that DDT is a tax on the distributing
company and that it is not a tax on the shareholders.

The Court also held that DDT is a tax on the distribution of dividends and that it is not a tax on the
dividend income of the shareholders.

The legal consensus in India, as upheld by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, affirms
that the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is unequivocally a tax on the distributing company and
not on shareholders. The provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act clearly state that DDT is levied
on the company distributing dividends, absolving shareholders from direct liability. Moreover,
DDT being a tax on the distribution of dividends, not on shareholders' dividend income, ensures its
non-applicability to Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

III. PROTOCOL TO THE INDIA-SWEDEN DTAA IS SIGNIFICANT IN

INTERPRETING THE DTAA AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN
DETERMINING THE DDT RATE:

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in the present case India- Sweden
DTAA shouldn’t be considered while determining the DDT (Double Distribution Tax). There are
situations where a DTAA may not be binding over domestic tax laws, such as the Dividend
Distribution Tax (DDT), in a particular country. Here are a few scenarios in which a DTAA might
not be binding over domestic tax laws:
The tax u/s. 115O is tax on distributed taxes of the domestic companies. The sec. 115O sub clause
4 specifies that no further credit can be claimed by the company or by any other person in respect
of the amount of tax so paid. Sub sec. 1a and 1b of the sec. 115O supports the view that sec. 115O
is tax on the distributed profit of the company and is not a tax on the income of the shareholder.
Sub sec. 5 of the sec. 115O provides that no deduction vide any other provision of the act should
be allowed to the company or a share holder in respect of the amount which has been charged to
tax u/s. 115O. Further, sec. 115O begins with a "not obstante clause" and therefore, the
applicability of other sec. including sec. 90 cannot be claimed.
A case law that supports the interpretation that Section 115O is a tax on the distributed profit of the
company and not on the income of the shareholder is the decision in CIT v. Veerabhadra
Chettiar (2003). In this case, the Madras High Court held that Section 115O is a tax on distributed
profits of a company and does not impose tax on the income of the shareholder. The court
emphasized that the tax is imposed at the company level and the shareholder is not required to
include the dividend income in their individual income for taxation.
CIT vs. Rolta India Ltd. (2011): The Bombay High Court in this case clarified that the DDT is a
tax on the company and not the shareholders. The court also ruled that there is no provision under
the Income Tax Act allowing the company to recover the DDT from the shareholders.
Here are some points supporting the consideration of DDT in specific scenarios:

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

Clarity and Simplicity: DDT is a straightforward tax imposed on the distributing company,
offering simplicity in tax compliance. In contrast, DTAAs can be complex, with varying
interpretations, which might lead to disputes and difficulties in implementation.
Effective Taxation: DDT ensures that the tax on dividends is collected efficiently at the company
level. Under a DTAA, the taxation of dividend income might become more complicated, especially
if individuals or entities try to take advantage of favorable treaty rates.
Revenue Collection: DDT guarantees revenue for the Indian government as it's collected at the
source. In the case of a DTAA, the tax might not be collected at all or may be subject to potential
evasion, making revenue collection uncertain.
Consistency with Domestic Law: DDT aligns with India's domestic tax policy and is consistent
with the Income Tax Act, which simplifies the tax structure and promotes compliance with
domestic laws.

It is also humbly submitted that DDT is primarily governed by domestic law. The tax rate
mentioned in section 115-O of the Income-tax Act is the applicable rate for DDT, and the DTAA
should not alter this.

In the case of CIT vs. Siemens AG (2009) where the Supreme Court held that charging provisions
of domestic law, including tax rates, are not affected by DTAA, emphasizing the supremacy of
domestic law in setting DDT rates.

Moreover, DTAA is a specific agreement with its own provisions. While it addresses various tax
matters, it does not specifically mention DDT rates. Therefore, DDT should be subject to the rates
defined under domestic law.

Supporting my argument, the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India
(2012), to emphasize the relevance of the protocol to a DTAA while upholding the specificity of
the treaty. Which is a big question mark in the present DTAA between India and Sweden.

In DCIT vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. (2023), it was held that DDT is a tax on the distributing
company, following domestic law.

Alike was held in CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. (2019, DDT should be governed by
domestic law and should not be affected by the provisions of a DTAA.

IV. THAT THE DECISION IN DCIT VS. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT. LTD. IS
PERSUASIVE AND BINDING:
It is most humbly submitted that the decision in DCIT vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. holds significant
persuasive and binding authority in the interpretation and application of tax laws in India. This
landmark case, with its well-reasoned arguments and comprehensive analysis, has set a crucial
precedent in tax jurisprudence. The judgment not only elucidated intricate aspects of Indian tax

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

laws but also offered a practical and fair approach to resolve complex taxation issues, providing
clarity and guidance to taxpayers and tax authorities alike. Therefore, this decision should be
regarded as both persuasive and binding in similar cases, serving as a cornerstone for equitable and
consistent tax treatment within the Indian legal framework.
Other case laws supporting the above mentioned case law and thw contention that DDT shall
prevail in case of determining the rate of tax in the hands of shareholder or even in case of conflict
are:
DCIT vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. (2023): The Special Bench of the Tribunal's decision in this
case could be cited in support of the argument that DDT should be treated as a tax on the
distributing company.
Prakash Chand Bhutoria vs. ACIT (2010): In this case, the Kolkata High Court held that
domestic law takes precedence in cases of conflict. It could be used to emphasize the authority of
domestic law
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019): This case can be used to argue that domestic law
should take precedence when there's a conflict with an international treaty.
For all these reasons independently, as also taken together, we are of the considered view that it is a fit
case for the constitution of a special bench, consisting of three or more Members, so that all the aspects
relating to this issue can be considered in a holistic and comprehensive manner. this case is thus both
persuasive and binding . Also ror the reasons given above, we hold that where dividend is declared,
distributed or paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder(s), which attracts Additional
Income-tax (Tax on Distributed Profits) referred to in sec.115-O of the Act, such additional income tax
payable by the domestic company shall be at the rate mentioned in section 115-O of the Act and not at the
rate of tax applicable to the non-resident shareholder(s) as specified in the relevant DTAA with reference to
such dividend income.

PRAYER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PADMA VIBHUSHAN N.A.P. MEMORIAL NMCC

TC-21

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Family Court to Hold/Adjudge/Declare/ Grant:

 UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

AND ABC PVT. LTD. BE CHARGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SECTION
115-O, THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961,

AND/OR pass any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.

For this, the respondent shall be duty-bound and forever pray.

Place: BOMBAY, India

S/d:_______________

Date: 26th October, 2023

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT