MIH INDIA (MAURITIUS) LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INT. TAX., NEW DELHI

PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM:

Assessee has filed the captioned appeal challenging the final

assessment order dated 06.04.2022 passed under section 143(3)

read with section 143C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, in pursuance to

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-2, New

Delhi.

of short term capital gain of Rs.4,77,44,375/- arising on sale of

shares.

entity incorporated under the laws of Mauritius and is a tax

resident of Mauritius. The assessee has been issued a valid Tax

Residency Certificate (TRC) by Mauritian Tax Authorities entitling

the assessee to claim benefit under India – Mauritius Double

Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), to the extent it is more

beneficial to the assessee. It is an accepted factual position that

the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in the

year under consideration. Be that as it may, the assessee was

holding equity shares of Citrus Payments Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (In

short ‘Citrus India’), a company incorporated in India. As it may,

as stated by the Assessing Officer, by share purchase agreement

dated 13th September, 2016, the assessee purchased following

equity shares of Citrus India:

Shivani Gupta; and 2 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

Pay Pte. Ltd.

3.1 Subsequently, the assessee purchased 1,02,435 equity

shares of the same company on 1st September, 2016. All these

equity shares and cumulative preference shares of Citrus India

were sold to another Indian based corporate entity, PayU

Payments Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘PayU India’) on 28th March, 2017 for

a consideration of Rs.223,35,26,327/-. The resultant short term

capital gain of Rs.4,77,44,375/- was claimed as exempt under

Article 13(4) of India – Mauritius Tax Treaty. In course of

assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer called for necessary

details relating to the share transaction of Citrus India and after

examining the details found that both Citrus India and PayU

India are Associated Enterprises (AEs) of the assessee and

Jitendra Gupta, from whom the assessee had purchased equity

shares of Citrus India, is a key management personnel of PayU

India. The Assessing Officer observed that the holding company of

the assessee is PayU Global B.V., a company incorporated in

Netherlands. Thus, PayU Global B.V. is beneficial owner of the

assessee company. Further, he observed, PayU Global B.V., in

turn, is owned by Prosus NV, another company incorporated in 3 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

Netherlands with primary listing at Amsterdam Stock Exchange.

Further, on perusal of bank statement of the assessee, the

Assessing Officer noticed that prior to purchase of shares, the

holding company PayU Global B.V. has transferred money in form

of loan to the assessee, which was utilized for purchase of shares

of Citrus India. Further, on going through the financial

statements of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that

the assessee is incurring meager expenses and almost negligible

expenses for operational requirements for running a

business/commercial venture. He observed, the assessee does not

carry out any commercial/business activity in Mauritius. After

analyzing all these facts the Assessing Officer held that the

assessee is a mere conduit entity through which the holding

company at Netherlands has invested in shares of Citrus India.

He observed, the effective control and management of the

assessee company lies with the holding company at Netherlands

and the holding company essentially is the beneficial owner of the

capital gain. He observed, only for the purpose of claiming benefit

under the India – Mauritius Tax Treaty the entire share purchase

arrangement has been structured. Thus, he held that the

assessee had no economic or commercial substance and the only 4 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

object of introducing the assessee company is to obtain tax

advantage under India – Mauritius Tax Treaty. Thus, he

ultimately concluded that the beneficial provisions of India –

Mauritius DTAA would not be applicable as the beneficial owner

of short term capital gain is the holding company at the

Netherlands. Hence, the provisions of India - Netherlands DTAA

would be applicable. While coming to such conclusion, the

Assessing Officer referred to the protocol to India – Mauritius Tax

Treaty effective from 01.04.2017.

3.2 Further, referring to the fact that India is a signatory to

Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related

Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI) which

may completely alter the position of taxation of capital gain under

Article 13(4) after its amendment on implementation of MLI

preamble, subject to, Mauritius signing the MLI, the Assessing

Officer held that the prevailing legal position based on the ratio

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of

India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 706 (SC) would

significantly change and even if the assessee is having a valid

TRC, still it would not be entitled to tax exemption under the

Treaty. Further, he observed, since, the effective control and 5 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

management of the assessee company rests at the hands of the

holding company in Netherlands, the provisions of India –

Mauritius Tax Treaty would not apply to taxability of capital gain.

The Assessing Officer observed, to ascertain the true intent of the

transaction, the doctrine of substance over form has to be

applied. Thus, ultimately, the Assessing Officer concluded that

the beneficial provisions of India – Mauritius Tax Treaty would not

be applicable to the short term capital gain arising on sale of

shares, as, the assessee has entered into such transaction as a

conduit of the holding company based in Netherlands.

Accordingly, he brought to tax the short-term capital gain of

Rs.4,77,44,375/- at the hands of the assessee. Against the draft

assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer proposing the

addition, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP,

however, rejecting the objections, learned DRP confirmed the

addition made by the Assessing Officer.

submitted, the assessee is a company incorporated in Mauritius

in the year 2006. He submitted, the assessee is into investment

activities since its inception. He submitted, even in the year under

consideration, the assessee had proposed to make investments of 6 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

Rs.665 crores. He submitted, while purchasing shares in Citrus

India the assessee had made inbound investments and had

subsequently sold the shares to PayU India, wherein, the assessee

is having substantial interest, as, it holds 82% of the shares. He

submitted, even till date, PayU India is holding the shares of

Citrus India. He submitted, it is a fact on record that the assessee

is a Mauritius based company having a valid TRC issued by

Mauritian Tax Authorities. Therefore, as per the Circular No. 789,

dated 13.04.2000 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes

(CBDT), the assessee is entitled to get the benefit of India –

Mauritius Tax Treaty, as, applicable to the relevant assessment

year. He submitted, in case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra), it

has been clearly and categorically held that the beneficial

provisions of India – Mauritius Tax Treaty can be availed on the

strength of TRC. In this regard, he drew our attention to the

relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra).

Assessing Officer that the assessee is a conduit company and has

been transposed to avail the benefit of India – Mauritius Tax

Treaty is without any basis. Drawing our attention to Article 13(4) 7 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

of India – Mauritius Tax Treaty, as it existed prior to its

amendment by protocol to the treaty issued by Notification No. SO

2680(E), dated 10.08.2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017, he submitted, gains

derived from sale of shares by a resident of a particular country is

taxable in that country alone. He submitted, after the amendment

to the Tax Treaty, the capital gain arising out of sale of shares

acquired on or after 1st April, 2017 of a company situated in one

of the resident Contracting State can be taxed in that State.

However, he submitted, amended provisions would not be

applicable to the assessee because not only it is effective from

assessment year 2018-19, but it applies to shares acquired on or

after 1st April, 2017. He submitted, anticipating such future

events, which has not yet happened, such as, signing of the MLI

by Mauritius, the Assessing Officer has declined to apply the

settled legal principles as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra). In this regard, he also

relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of HSBC

Bank (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2018] 96 taxmann.com 544

(Mumbai). Without prejudice, he submitted, even assuming that

India – Mauritius Tax Treaty is not applicable to the underlying

8 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

transaction, even as per India – Netherlands Tax Treaty, the

amount is not taxable.

Tax Treaty, learned counsel submitted, as per said provision, gain

derived from sale of shares of an Indian company can be taxed in

India, if the value of such shares is derived principally from

immovable property situated in India, other than, property in

which the business of the company was carried on. He submitted,

the burden is on the revenue to establish that the value of shares

of the Indian company is derived principally from immovable

property situated in India. In this regard, he relied upon a

decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of JCIT Vs. Merrill

Lynch Capital Market Espana SA SV in ITA No.

6109/Mum/2018, dated 11.10.2019. He submitted, since, the

Assessing Officer has failed to factually establish such fact by

bringing any cogent material on record, the amount is not taxable

even under Article 13(4) of India – Netherlands Tax Treaty. In

support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the

following decisions as well:

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned DRP. She

submitted, the Assessing Officer has established on record that

the assessee had made investment in shares in Citrus India by

availing loan from its holding company. She submitted, though,

the holding company actually intended to buy the shares from

Citrus India, however, to avoid taxation of capital gain in India,

the holding company made the investment through its conduit

company based at Mauritius. She submitted, the structuring of

the arrangement would establish that, in substance, the

transaction in investment of shares in Citrus India is by the

holding company at Netherlands. She submitted, there is nothing

in the share purchase agreement to suggest the period of holding

of shares. She submitted, in such a scenario, ‘look through’

approach has to be adopted, rather than, ‘look at’ and substance

over form has to be seen. She submitted, the factual analysis of

the Assessing Officer clearly establishes that the assessee

company without having any economic and commercial

substance has been transposed to derive benefit under the Tax

Treaty. Thus, he submitted, the addition made by the Assessing

Officer should be sustained. 10 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

decisions relied upon and perused the materials on record. As far

as the factual aspect of the issue in dispute is concerned, it is a

fact that the assessee is a resident of Mauritius and the Mauritian

Tax Authorities have issued TRC in favour of the assessee. Thus,

on the strength of the TRC, the assessee has claimed benefit

under Article 13(4) of India – Mauritius Tax Treaty as it existed

prior to its amendment. Whereas, the Assessing Officer has held

that the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit under the India –

Mauritius Tax Treaty. The reason for coming to such conclusion

can, more or less, be summed up as under: • The assessee lacks commercial and economic substance. • It had no financial strength to invest in the shares of the

Indian company and the entire fund was routed through the

assessee by the holding company PayU Global B.V.

Netherlands • The effective control and management of the assessee lies

with the holding company at Netherlands. The assessee is

merely used as a conduit to get benefit of the India –

Mauritius Tax Treaty.

11 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

• India has deposited ratified MLI with the OECD and it has

come into force in India on 1st October, 2019 and the MLI

preamble will be added to the India – Mauritius Tax Treaty,

if Mauritius signs the MLI and notifies the India – Mauritius

Tax Treaty as a Covered Tax Agreement (TCA). • Once MLI preamble is added to the Tax Treaty, there will be

significant change in the legal position established in Azadi

Bachao Andolan (supra) as the MLI preamble specifically

provides for prevention of opportunities for tax

avoidance/evasion through treaty shopping

reasoning of the Assessing Officer without recording any

independent finding of their own. Having taking note of the

factual position, it is necessary to observe, the taxability of capital

gain arising from sale of shares of Citrus India to PayU India by

the assessee, in normal course, would be subject to Article 13(4)

of the Tax Treaty or the domestic law, whichever is more

beneficial to the assessee. Article 13 of the Tax Treaty prior to its

amendment read as under:

“ARTICLE 13 - Capital gains - 1. Gains from the alienation of immovable property, as defined in paragraph (2) of article 6, may

12 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

be taxed in the Contracting State in which such property is situated. 2. Gains from the alienation of movable property forming part of the business property of a permanent establishment which an enterprise of a Contracting State has in the other Contracting State or of movable property pertaining to a fixed base available to a resident of a Contracting State in the other Contracting State for the purpose of performing independent personal services, including such gains from the alienation of such a permanent establishment (alone or together with the whole enterprise) or of such a fixed base, may be taxed in that other State, 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of this article, gains from the alienation of ships and aircraft operated in international traffic and movable property pertaining to the operation of such ships and aircraft, shall be taxable only in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated. 4. Gains derived by a resident of a Contracting State from the alienation of any property other than those mentioned in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of this article shall be taxable only in that State. 5. For the purposes of this article, the term "alienation" means the sale, exchange, transfer, or relinquishment of the property or the extinguishment of any rights therein or the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law in force in the respective Contracting States,

a whole, it is very much clear that the capital gain derived by the

assessee on sale of shares would be covered under Article 13(4) of

the Tax Treaty. A reading of Article 13(4) would make it clear that

the capital gain derived by the assessee would be taxable in

Mauritius. Article 13 of India – Mauritius Tax Treaty was

subsequently amended by a protocol and the amended Article 13

which was made effective from 01.04.2017 applicable to

assessment year 2018-19 reads as under: 13 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

“ARTICLE 13 CAPITAL GAINS 1. Gains from the alienation of immovable property, as defined in paragraph (2) of article 6, may be taxed in the Contracting State in which such property is situated. 2. Gains from the alienation of movable property forming part of the business property of a permanent establishment Which an enterprise of a Contracting State has in the other Contracting State or of movable property pertaining to a fixed base available to a resident of a Contracting State in the other Contracting State for the purpose of performing independent personal services, including such gains from the alienation of such a permanent establishment ( alone or together with the whole enterprise.) or of such a fixed base, may be taxed in that other State. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of this article, gains from the alienation of ships and aircraft operated in international traffic and movable property pertaining to the operation of such ships and aircraft, shall be taxable only in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated. 6[ 3A. Gains from the alienation of shares acquired on or after 1st April 2017 in a company which is resident of a Contracting State may, be taxed in that State. 3B. However, the tax rate on the gains referred to in paragraph 3A of this Article and arising during the period beginning on 1st April, 2017 and ending on 31st March, 2019 shall not exceed 50% of the tax rate applicable on such gains in the State of residence of the company whose shares are being alienated; I 4. Gains from the alienation of any property other than that referred to 7[ in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 3A shall be taxable only in the Contracting State of which the alienator is a resident] 5. For the purposes of this article, the term "alienation" means the sale, exchange, transfer, or relinquishment of the property or the extinguishment of any rights therein or the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law in force in the respective Contracting States.

clear that some changes were made to the pre-amended Article 13

by insertion of paragraph 3A and 3B and substitution of

14 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

paragraph 4 with a new paragraph 4. Paragraph 3A of Article 13

specifically deals with gains from alienation of shares acquired on

or after 1st April, 2017 by providing taxing power to the source

country. Paragraph 3B allowed grand fathering for a period of two

years by providing beneficial rate of tax not exceeding 50% of the

tax rate applicable on such gain in source country, subject to,

applicability of Limitation of Benefits under Article 27A of the

Treaty. However, in the facts of the present appeal, since, the

shares resulting in capital gain were acquired prior 01.04.2017, it

will not be covered under Article 13(3A) and 13(3B) of the

amended Article 13. In sum and substance, the present

transaction of the assessee would be governed under pre-

amended Article 13 of India – Mauritius Tax Treaty. That being

the position, the assessee otherwise is entitled to avail the

beneficial provision of Article 13(4) on the strength of TRC.

reasoning of the Assessing Officer in denying the Treaty benefits

to the assessee. The primary objection of the Assessing Officer is

to the effect that the assessee is a conduit company having no

economic and commercial substance. Therefore, it being a mere

case of treaty shopping, benefits under India – Mauritius Treaty 15 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

cannot be given. Rather, the beneficial owner of capital gain being

the holding company at Netherlands, the provisions of India –

Netherlands Tax Treaty would apply. It is necessary to examine

the validity of the aforesaid reasoning of the Assessing Officer.

Undisputedly, the assessee was incorporated in Mauritius in the

year 2006. It is not disputed that the assessee had been carrying

on investment activity in India as well as other places. The TRC

issued by the Mauritian Tax Authorities bears testimony to this

fact. Further, audited financial statements of the assessee

indicate that not only it had made substantial investments in

India, but, proposes to make additional investment to the tune of

Rs.665 crores in the year under consideration and subsequent

years. Interestingly, PayU India to whom the assessee had sold

the shares of Citrus India is a company in India, wherein, the

assessee had substantial interest, as, it holds 82.94% shares. It is

also a fact that shares of Citrus India sold to PayU India are still

held by PayU India and has not been sold. These facts clearly

establish that the assessee is not a fly by night operator or mere

conduit company as the Assessing Officer has attempted to make

out. Merely because the assessee availed loans from its holding

16 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

company to invest in shares of Citrus India, ipso facto, cannot be

a reason to treat the assessee as a conduit company.

with the issue of TRC issued by Mauritian Authorities and

applicability of the beneficial provisions of India – Mauritius Tax

Treaty on the strength of such TRC, states as under:

“It is hereby clarified that wherever a certificate of residency is issued by the Mauritian Authorities, such certificate will constitute sufficient evidence for accepting the status of residence as well as beneficial ownership for applying the DTAA accordingly.”

Thus, as per the aforesaid circular issued by CBDT,

wherever a certificate of residency is issued by the Mauritian Tax

Authorities, such certificate will constitute sufficient evidence for

accepting the status of residence as well as the beneficial

ownership for applying the provisions of India – Mauritius Tax

Treaty. The validity of the aforesaid CBDT Circular came up for

consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of

India & Another Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra). Relevant

facts relating to this case are, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was

filed before Hon’ble Delhi High Court challenging the validity of

Circular No. 789, dated 13.04.2022 issued by the CBDT. While

deciding the Writ Application, the Honble Delhi High Court 17 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

quashed the circular by holding that the said circular is ultra

vires the provisions of section 90 and section 119 of the Act.

Interestingly, the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High

Court was challenged by the Union of India before Hon’ble

Supreme Court. While upholding the validity of the CBDT

Circular No. 789, dated 13.04.2000, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

specifically dealt with the concept of treaty shopping and observed

as under:

“134. There are many principles in fiscal economy which, though at the first blush might appear to be evil, are tolerated in a developing economy, in the interest of long-term development. Deficit financing, for example, is one; treaty shopping in our view, is another. Despite the sound and fury of the respondents over the so-called "abuse" of "treaty shopping", perhaps, it may have been intended at the time when the Indo-Mauritius DTAC was entered? into. Whether it should continue, and, if so, for how long, is a matter which is best left to the discretion of the executive as it is dependent upon several economic and political considerations. This Court cannot judge the legality of treaty shopping merely because one section of thought considers it improper. A holistic view has to be taken to adjudge what is perhaps regarded in contemporary thinking as a necessary evil in a developing economy. Rule in McDowell"

Court accepted the contention put forward by the appellants that

the motives with which the residents have been incorporated in

Mauritius are wholly irrelevant and cannot in any way affect the

legality of the transaction, as, there is nothing like equity in a

18 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

fiscal statute. Either, the statute applies proprio vigore or it does

not. There is no question of fiscal statue by intendment if the

expressed words do not apply. We must say, unfortunately, the

Assessing Officer has made a desperate and unacceptable attempt

to overcome the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra) by anticipating a futuristic

event of ratification of MLI providing amendment to the preamble

of India – Mauritius Tax Treaty by Mauritius Government, which

is yet to see the light of the day. In our view, without unreservedly

following the binding ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case

of Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra), which is the law of the land

under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the Assessing

Officer has allowed his mind to be clouded by extraneous

considerations and contingent events to deny the benefit of India

– Mauritius Tax Treaty to the assessee, which the assessee is

legally entitled to on the strength of the TRC issued by the

Mauritian Tax Authorities and as per CBDT Circular No. 789,

dated 13.04.2000. In view of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation

in holding that the gain derived by the assessee on sale of shares

of Citrus India to PayU India is not taxable in India as per pre-

amended Article 13(4) of India – Mauritius Tax Treaty. While 19 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

coming to such conclusion, we have followed the binding ratio of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Azadi Bachao Andolan

(supra) and CBDT Circular no. 789, dated 13.04.2022.

to examine, in case, we accept Assessing Officer’s reasoning that

the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit under India –

Mauritius Tax Treaty and on the contrary, the holding company

at Netherlands being the beneficial owner, the provisions of India

– Netherlands Tax Treaty would apply, what would be the

position. On a careful reading of Article 13 of India – Netherlands

Tax Treaty, which deals with taxation of capital gain, it becomes

clear that the subject transaction would have fallen under Article

13(4) of the Tax Treaty, which reads as under:

“13(4) Gains derived by a resident of one of the States from the alienation of shares (other than shares quoted on an approved stock exchange) forming part of a substantial interest in the capital stock of a company which is a resident of the other State, the value of which shares is derived principally from immovable property situated in that other State other than property in which the business of the company was carried on, may be taxed in that other State. A substantial interest exists when the resident owns 25 per cent or more of the shares of the capital stock of a company.” 16. A careful reading of Article 13(4) makes it clear that the

source State has the authority to tax the capital gain, only if, the

value of shares sold is derived principally from immovable

property situated in the source State, other than, property in 20 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

which the business of the company whose shares were sold was

carried out. In case of JCIT Vs. Merrill Lynch Capital Market

Espana SA SV (supra) the Coordinate Bench, while dealing with

an identical provision under India – Spain DTAA has held that the

onus is entirely on the Assessing Officer to prove that the value of

shares is derived principally from immovable property situated in

the source country. In other words, it has to be proved that the

Indian company in which the assessee had invested the money

towards equity was principally holding immovable property.

Neither any such allegation has been made by the Assessing

Officer in the assessment order before invoking Article 13(4) of

India – Netherlands Tax Treaty, nor in course of the proceeding

before DRP or even the Tribunal any material has been brought

on record by Revenue to demonstrate that the condition of Article

13(4) of India – Netherlands Tax Treaty is satisfied.

capital gain will not be taxable even under Article 13(4) of the

India – Netherlands Tax Treaty. Thus, seen from any angle, the

short-term capital gain arising on sale of shares is not taxable in

India. In view of the aforesaid, we delete the addition made by the

21 | P a g e

ITA No.1023/Del/2022 AY: 2017-18

Assessing Officer. Ground nos. 3 and 4 being consequential and

premature, do not require adjudication at this stage.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th November, 2022

Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (SAKTIJIT DEY) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 16th November, 2022. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

22 | P a g e