REVERSE AGE HEALTH SERVICES PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 1867/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 February 2023AY 2018-1926 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the revenue cannot go behind the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by the Singapore tax authorities. Furthermore, the transaction qualified for exemptions under the domestic GAAR provisions (Rule 10U(1)(a) and (d)), overriding the GAAR provisions invoked by the AO/DRP.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Singapore-based company, claimed exemption from Indian tax on short-term capital gains from the sale of shares of an Indian company, citing the India-Singapore DTAA. The Assessing Officer (AO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) denied this benefit, treating the assessee as a shell or conduit company.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue can disregard a valid Tax Residency Certificate issued by a foreign tax jurisdiction, and whether the transaction falls under the exemptions provided in the domestic GAAR provisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 90(2),Section 90(4),Section 101

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 13/02/2023Pronounced: 17/02/2023

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 18.07.2022 framed u/s.143 (3) r.w.s. 144 C (13) of the Act.

2.

Though the assessee has raised as many as 34 grounds of appeal but at the very outset the Counsel for the assessee fairly stated that he would be contesting ground No.9, 17,21 24 and 26 which read as under :-

9.

That the AO/DRP grossly erred in denying the appellant he benefits of India- Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA) and bringing to tax the short-term capital gains of INR 1,92,63,473/- earned by the Appellant during AY 2018-19 as chargeable to tax in India.

17.

That the AO/ DRP erred i

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →