THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. SILVER BELLA HOLDING LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that no variation of income occurred and a draft assessment order was not required. The High Court noted that this prima facie did not align with Section 144C but sought to hear the assessee.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning AY 2014-15. The assessee, a Cyprus-incorporated company, earned interest income in India and offered tax at 10% as per the India-Cyprus DTAA.
What were the issues?
Whether a draft assessment order was required when the revenue proposed to tax interest income at a higher rate than offered by the assessee under the DTAA.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 275/2023 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3
..... Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Shlok Chandra and Ms Priya Sarkar, Standing Counsel.
versus
SILVER BELLA HOLDING LTD.
..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
O R D E R %
15.05.2023
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM Appl.24991/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 300 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. This is an application filed on behalf the appellant/revenue, seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 300 days. 3. Issue notice to the non-applicant/respondent/assessee via all permissible modes, including email. 4. List the application on 25.08.2023.
ITA 275/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.
ITA 275/2023
1/3 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 13:34:20
The appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 19.05.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 7. The respondent/assessee had challenged the assessment order dated 07.09.2018 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”], inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. 8. The record shows that the respondent/assessee is in the business of investment and in the process earned interest on investments made in India. 8.1 The record also shows that the respondent/assessee is incorporated and located in Cyprus. 9. The respondent/assessee had offered levy of tax at the rate of 10% on the income earned by way of interest, in terms of India-Cyprus Double Tax Avoidance Agreement [in short “DTAA”]. 10. The appellant/revenue seeks to levy tax on the said income earned by the respondent/assessee at the rate of 20%, as per Section 115A of the Act. 11. Broadly, the view taken by the Tribunal is that there is no variation of income, and draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act was not required to be passed. 12. Mr Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, however, contends to the contrary. 12.1 According to Mr Bhatia, the respondent/assessee is an eligible person, and there was variation of income inasmuch the rate at which tax was sought to be imposed by the revenue, i.e., at the rate of 20%, as against the rate offered by the respondent /assessee.
ITA 275/2023
2/3 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 13:34:20
Prima facie, this submission does not align with the language used in Section 144C of the Act. However, we would like to hear the respondent/assessee on this aspect of the matter, as well. 14. Accordingly, issue notice to the respondent via all permissible modes, including email. 15. List the matter on 25.08.2023.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
MAY 15, 2023/pmc
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ITA 275/2023
3/3
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 13:34:20
More judgments on Section 144C(13)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 486/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 498/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026