THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. SARVA CAPITAL LLC

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 34 / 2024HC Delhi18 January 20242 pages
For Petitioner: RUCHIR BHATIA
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal for consideration, noting that the ITAT's decision did not allude to the relevant provisions of the India-Mauritius DTAA, specifically Articles 13(3A), 13(3B), and 27A.

What were the facts?

The ITAT allowed treaty benefits to the assessee based on a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC). The Revenue appealed, arguing the ITAT failed to consider amendments to the India-Mauritius DTAA and that the assessee engaged in treaty shopping for tax avoidance.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT erred in granting treaty benefits without considering the anti-abuse provisions of the DTAA and the assessee's alleged treaty shopping.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 13(3A), Article 13(3B), Article 27A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 34/2024 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Deekshu Gupta, Advocate.

versus

SARVA CAPITAL LLC

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR

KAURAV

O R D E R %

18.01.2024 1. Notice. Although the respondent is stated to have been placed on advance notice, none has appeared on its behalf when the matter was called. Consequently, let the appellant take steps for service upon the said respondent through all permissible modes including via approved courier service. The respondent may file a reply, if so chosen and advised, within a period of four weeks from today. 2. Prima facie and on hearing Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal, we note that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] has primarily rested its decision on the valid and existing Tax Residency Certificate [“TRC”] which was held by the respondents assessee. It has clearly failed to allude to the provisions introduced in the India Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [“DTAA”] and more particularly Articles 13(3A), 13(3B) and Article 27A. Matter requires consideration. We accordingly admit this appeal on following question of law:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:32:42

A. Whether the ITAT as erred in law, by holding that treaty benefit of India Mauritius DTAA are available to the assessee ignoring the fact that scheme of arrangement employed by assessee is a tax avoidance through treaty shopping mechanism? 3. List again on 03.05.2024.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. JANUARY 18, 2024 neha

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:32:42

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →