I paid DDT at the full domestic rate years ago and never claimed the treaty rate in my return. Is there any way to get the excess back now?
The Delhi Tribunal allowed exactly that route. The company had paid DDT at 16.61 per cent on dividend to its Japanese parent for FY 2010-11, and after the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Tea and the Tribunal's decision in Giesecke & Devrient it applied to the Assessing Officer under s.237 on 27 November 2020 for refund of the excess of 6.61 per cent. The Tribunal held the claim maintainable notwithstanding that it had not been made in the return, followed the Bombay High Court in Colorcon Asia, and directed the Assessing Officer to charge tax on the dividend distributed to Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company Limited, Japan at ten per cent under Article 10 of the India-Japan treaty; all three appeals were allowed.
Decided by the ITAT (Shri Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member and Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member (ITAT Delhi Bench)) on 2025-12-31, reported as ITA Nos. 3910, 3911 and 3912/Del/2024, assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14; heard 15 December 2025, pronounced 31 December 2025. It bears on section 115-O, section 237, section 90(2), section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Refunds, Interest & Condonation and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
Most of the writing on this subject argues the merits and never reaches the question a practitioner actually faces: the DDT was paid voluntarily, years ago, without any claim in the return, and there is no DDT assessment order to appeal. This order is useful precisely because it takes that route seriously. The company filed under s.237, and the Tribunal rejected the officer's and the first appellate authority's objection to the form of the claim, recording that in the absence of any utility for claiming a refund of s.115-O tax in the return of income the claim could not have been made there. It is also the clearest illustration of what the treaty argument is worth in money. The company had paid at 16.61 per cent — fifteen per cent enhanced by 7.5 per cent surcharge and three per cent cess — against a treaty ceiling of ten per cent, so the claim was for the 6.61 per cent difference on a dividend of about Rs 5.45 crore. Two cautions. The order is dated 31 December 2025, a month after Colorcon Asia and four months before the Bombay High Court referred Colorcon's correctness to a Larger Bench in Foseco India Ltd.; it does not and could not deal with that reference. And the Tribunal here applied Colorcon directly to a different treaty — Article 10 of the India-Japan agreement — without separate analysis of that treaty's own terms, which is a step the Kolkata Tribunal in Bata India Ltd. was later unwilling to take where a protocol was in play.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, a tax resident of India, engaged in manufacturing and selling catalytic converters for the automobile industry, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company Limited, Japan, a company formed and registered under the laws of Japan and a tax resident of Japan. For FY 2010-11 (AY 2011-12) it paid dividend of Rs 5,45,72,957 to its Japanese shareholder and deposited dividend distribution tax of Rs 90,63,886 at 16.61 per cent — fifteen per cent enhanced by 7.5 per cent surcharge and three per cent cess — by challan dated 9 June 2010. Assessment under s.143(3) was completed on 27 February 2015 accepting the returned income. Following the Supreme Court's decision of 20 September 2017 in Tata Tea Co. Ltd. and the Delhi Tribunal's decision of 13 October 2020 in Giesecke & Devrient (India) Pvt. Ltd., the company applied to the Assessing Officer under s.237 on 27 November 2020 for refund of the excess DDT of Rs 36,06,590, being 6.61 per cent (16.61 less ten). The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim, the latter on merits relying on the Special Bench decision in DCIT v. Total Oil India (P.) Ltd. The facts and issue in the two later years were identical.
The appeals were allowed. The Tribunal held the s.237 claim maintainable notwithstanding that it had not been made in the return, and, following the Bombay High Court in Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd. and s.90(2), directed the Assessing Officer to charge tax on the dividend distributed by the company to Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company Limited, Japan at ten per cent under Article 10 of the India-Japan treaty. Its findings in the lead year were applied mutatis mutandis to the other two years, and all three appeals were allowed.
At paragraph 9.2 the Bench rejected the view of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) on the form of the claim, recording that the assessee had filed a claim under s.237 and had also filed its return on the due date but that, in the absence of any utility in claiming a refund under s.115-O in the return of income, the claim could not be made there. At paragraph 9.4 it noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the claim on merits relying on the Special Bench in Total Oil India (P.) Ltd., and set out the Bombay High Court's findings in Colorcon Asia at length. At paragraph 9.5 it found the facts before it similar — an Indian resident company governed by the India-Japan treaty, wholly owned by a Japanese tax resident, which had paid DDT at 16.61 per cent when Article 10 caps the rate at ten per cent of the gross amount where the recipient is the beneficial owner. At paragraph 9.6 it followed Colorcon Asia and s.90(2) and directed the ten per cent rate.
Therefore, following the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the provisions of Section 90(2) of the Act, we direct the AO to charge tax rate distributed by the assessee company to Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company Limited, Japan @ 10% under Article 10 of India-Japan DTAA.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppThe Delhi Tribunal allowed exactly that route. The company had paid DDT at 16.61 per cent on dividend to its Japanese parent for FY 2010-11, and after the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Tea and the Tribunal's decision in Giesecke & Devrient it applied to the Assessing Officer under s.237 on 27 November 2020 for refund of the excess of 6.61 per cent. The Tribunal held the claim maintainable notwithstanding that it had not been made in the return, followed the Bombay High Court in Colorcon Asia, and directed the Assessing Officer to charge tax on the dividend distributed to Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company Limited, Japan at ten per cent under Article 10 of the India-Japan treaty; all three appeals were allowed. This was decided by the ITAT (Shri Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member and Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member (ITAT Delhi Bench)) and bears on section 115-O, section 237, section 90(2), section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA Nos. 3910, 3911 and 3912/Del/2024, assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14; heard 15 December 2025, pronounced 31 December 2025. Most of the writing on this subject argues the merits and never reaches the question a practitioner actually faces: the DDT was paid voluntarily, years ago, without any claim in the return, and there is no DDT assessment order to appeal. This order is useful precisely because it takes that route seriously. The company filed under s.237, and the Tribunal rejected the officer's and the first appellate authority's objection to the form of the claim, recording that in the absence of any utility for claiming a refund of s.115-O tax in the return of income the claim could not have been made there. It is also the clearest illustration of what the treaty argument is worth in money. The company had paid at 16.61 per cent — fifteen per cent enhanced by 7.5 per cent surcharge and three per cent cess — against a treaty ceiling of ten per cent, so the claim was for the 6.61 per cent difference on a dividend of about Rs 5.45 crore. Two cautions. The order is dated 31 December 2025, a month after Colorcon Asia and four months before the Bombay High Court referred Colorcon's correctness to a Larger Bench in Foseco India Ltd.; it does not and could not deal with that reference. And the Tribunal here applied Colorcon directly to a different treaty — Article 10 of the India-Japan agreement — without separate analysis of that treaty's own terms, which is a step the Kolkata Tribunal in Bata India Ltd. was later unwilling to take where a protocol was in play. If it applies to you, the first step is this: If the DDT has already been paid and there is no order to appeal, consider a claim under s.237 to the Assessing Officer, which is the route that succeeded here — and consider it now, because limitation on a refund claim is independent of the merits.
The assessee is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, a tax resident of India, engaged in manufacturing and selling catalytic converters for the automobile industry, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company Limited, Japan, a company formed and registered under the laws of Japan and a tax resident of Japan. For FY 2010-11 (AY 2011-12) it paid dividend of Rs 5,45,72,957 to its Japanese shareholder and deposited dividend distribution tax of Rs 90,63,886 at 16.61 per cent — fifteen per cent enhanced by 7.5 per cent surcharge and three per cent cess — by challan dated 9 June 2010. Assessment under s.143(3) was completed on 27 February 2015 accepting the returned income. Following the Supreme Court's decision of 20 September 2017 in Tata Tea Co. Ltd. and the Delhi Tribunal's decision of 13 October 2020 in Giesecke & Devrient (India) Pvt. Ltd., the company applied to the Assessing Officer under s.237 on 27 November 2020 for refund of the excess DDT of Rs 36,06,590, being 6.61 per cent (16.61 less ten). The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim, the latter on merits relying on the Special Bench decision in DCIT v. Total Oil India (P.) Ltd. The facts and issue in the two later years were identical. The matter was decided on 2025-12-31 by the ITAT (Shri Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member and Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member (ITAT Delhi Bench)). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeals were allowed. The Tribunal held the s.237 claim maintainable notwithstanding that it had not been made in the return, and, following the Bombay High Court in Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd. and s.90(2), directed the Assessing Officer to charge tax on the dividend distributed by the company to Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company Limited, Japan at ten per cent under Article 10 of the India-Japan treaty. Its findings in the lead year were applied mutatis mutandis to the other two years, and all three appeals were allowed.
At paragraph 9.2 the Bench rejected the view of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) on the form of the claim, recording that the assessee had filed a claim under s.237 and had also filed its return on the due date but that, in the absence of any utility in claiming a refund under s.115-O in the return of income, the claim could not be made there. At paragraph 9.4 it noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the claim on merits relying on the Special Bench in Total Oil India (P.) Ltd., and set out the Bombay High Court's findings in Colorcon Asia at length. At paragraph 9.5 it found the facts before it similar — an Indian resident company governed by the India-Japan treaty, wholly owned by a Japanese tax resident, which had paid DDT at 16.61 per cent when Article 10 caps the rate at ten per cent of the gross amount where the recipient is the beneficial owner. At paragraph 9.6 it followed Colorcon Asia and s.90(2) and directed the ten per cent rate. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Therefore, following the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the provisions of Section 90(2) of the Act, we direct the AO to charge tax rate distributed by the assessee company to Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company Limited, Japan @ 10% under Article 10 of India-Japan DTAA." The decision followed or applied M/s. Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court at Goa, 28 November 2025) — followed; Giesecke & Devrient (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi, 13 October 2020) — relied on as the origin of the claim; Union of India v. Tata Tea Co. Ltd. (Supreme Court, 20 September 2017) — relied on as the origin of the claim; DCIT v. Total Oil India (P.) Ltd. (Special Bench, ITAT Mumbai) — not followed.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2025-12-31 and is reported as ITA Nos. 3910, 3911 and 3912/Del/2024, assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14; heard 15 December 2025, pronounced 31 December 2025. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 115-O, section 237, section 90(2), section 143(3), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeals were allowed. The Tribunal held the s.237 claim maintainable notwithstanding that it had not been made in the return, and, following the Bombay High Court in Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd. and s.90(2), directed the Assessing Officer to charge tax on the dividend distributed by the company to Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company Limited, Japan at ten per cent under Article 10 of the India-Japan treaty. Its findings in the lead year were applied mutatis mutandis to the other two years, and all three appeals were allowed. It arises in Refunds, Interest & Condonation and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 115-O, section 237, section 90(2), section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Shri Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member and Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member (ITAT Delhi Bench). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Meet the 'not claimed in the return' objection head-on with the reason accepted here: there is no utility in the return of income for claiming a refund of tax paid under s.115-O. Quantify the claim precisely: the domestic effective rate for the year, inclusive of that year's surcharge and cess, less the treaty ceiling. The figure here was 16.61 per cent against ten per cent. Identify the dividend article of the shareholder's own treaty. This order applied Article 10 of the India-Japan agreement by following a decision on Article 11 of the India-UK agreement, and a different treaty or a protocol may not follow so easily. Disclose the Foseco India Ltd. reference of 27 April 2026 when relying on this order; it postdates this order and the officer will find it.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The citator search (doc 193812344, confirmed as 'Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt ... vs ITO Ward Two on 31 December, 2025') returns nothing. A second probe on the company name returned 29 decisions; the Punjab and Haryana High Court income-tax matters (9 September 2021, 1 February 2022, 24 March 2022) all pre-date this order, and the only later High Court item, a Delhi High Court order of 16 March 2026 against the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, concerns a different subject and a different forum from the one a s.260A appeal from this Rewari assessee would take. No challenge to the s.237 DDT-refund holding was found. Nothing overruling, doubting or distinguishing it was found, and no appeal to a High Court against it is disclosed on the record searched. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The paragraph inventory of this order was established by transcription and is irregular: the printed numbers are 1, 2, 2.1, 3, 3.1, 4, 4.1, 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6, 6.1, 8, 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 10, 11, 12 — there is NO paragraph 7, so anyone citing 'paragraph 7' of this order is citing nothing. The last paragraph is 12, 'To sum up, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed.' Paragraphs 9.5, 9.6, 10, 11 and 12 were transcribed verbatim twice, once from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193812344/ and once from the same document via ?type=print, and the two are word-identical. Paragraph 9.4 of this order reproduces paragraphs 55, 56, 58, 59 and 60 of the Bombay High Court's judgment in Colorcon Asia together with its disposal; those are the High Court's paragraph numbers and not this order's, and I have not attributed them to this order. The order describes the Special Bench decision in Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. as having been 'overruled' by the Bombay High Court; that is this Tribunal's characterisation and, given the Foseco India Ltd. reference of 27 April 2026, it is not a characterisation this entry adopts. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeals were allowed. The Tribunal held the s.237 claim maintainable notwithstanding that it had not been made in the return, and, following the Bombay High Court in Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd. and s.90(2), directed the Assessing Officer to charge tax on the dividend distributed by the company to Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company Limited, Japan at ten per cent under Article 10 of the India-Japan treaty. Its findings in the lead year were applied mutatis mutandis to the other two years, and all three appeals were allowed.
TaxSphere, “Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals), NFAC”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/mitsui-kinzoku-refund-of-excess-ddt-under-section-237/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The department adjusted my refund first and issued the s.245 notice afterwards. Does the later notice fix it?
My assessment was annulled by the Tribunal and the department cannot make a fresh one. Do I get back everything I paid, including the tax on my own returned income?
My customer deducted TDS on my bills and deposited almost none of it, and I have no Form 16A. Can I still get the credit and stop the demand?
My client's assessment has become final and I now want the tax back because the levy was wrong. Can I run that argument as a refund claim, or in a writ petition based on Article 265?
