CPI INDIA I LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INT.TAX. CIRCLE-1(2)(1), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the departmental authorities failed to provide cogent material to prove the assessee was a paper company and thus not entitled to treaty benefits. Since the assessee held a valid TRC and investments were made prior to a certain date, treaty benefits were allowed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Mauritius-based investment holding company, sold shares of Indian companies and claimed exemption under the India-Mauritius DTAA. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment, alleging the assessee was a paper company and not entitled to treaty benefits.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid and whether the assessee was entitled to treaty benefits under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144C(13),Section 148,Section 48,Section 112(1)(c)(iii),Section 115A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(10)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.2,664 citing88 ITR 192 · 1973 · SC
- CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.1,673 citing187 Taxmann 312 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das721 citing103 ITR 437 · 1976 · SC · Read judgment
- Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India216 citing17 Taxmann.com 202 · 2012 · SC
- (i) Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain187 citing1 SCC 373 · 1997
- Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co.114 citing95 Taxmann.com 327 · 2018 · SC · Read judgment
- Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh70 citing8 SCC 667 · 1999 · SC
- Consumer Online Foundation v. Union of India & Others16 citing5 SCC 360 · 2011
- CIT v. J.K. Hosiary Factory9 citing159 ITR 85 · 1986 · SC
- BASF AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT v. DDIT(IT) 293 ITR(AT) I (Mum)3 citing149 Taxmann.com 436 · 2023
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE- & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-
Captioned appeal of the assessee challenges the final
assessment order dated 19.01.2023 passed under section 147
read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short
‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2016-17 in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). AY: 2016-17
Ground nos. 1 and 2 are on the validity of the assessment
order passed under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Whereas, ground nos. 3 and 4 are on merits
relating to the issue of taxability of capital gain arising on sale of shares.
Briefly the facts are, the assessee 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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Prathima Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad vs ACIT., Central Circle - 2(4), HyderabadHyderabad27 Nov 2024Allowed
Also relies on Consumer Online Foundation v. Union of India & Others and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 80IA(4). It reasoned that beneficial exemption provisions should be interpreted liberally and that the assessee, as a constituent partner of...
- Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs ITO Ward - 20(4), New DelhiDelhi18 Jan 2022Remanded
Also relies on Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity by the Assessing Officer and that the reopening of the assessment was questionable. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.
- Kiran Navin Doshi, Mumbai vs ITO -23(2)(4), MumbaiMumbai18 Jan 2017Dismissed
Also relies on Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the profit element (12.5%) on alleged bogus purchases, as the assessee failed to establish a direct link between these purchases and sales. The appeal was dismissed.
- DCIT - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs M/S. Samanta Organics P. Ltd., MumbaiMumbai7 Apr 2021Dismissed
Also relies on Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering that the sales were not doubted and the decision was judicious. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere wi...
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Hes Infra Private Limited, HyderabadHyderabad31 Aug 2023Allowed
Also relies on Consumer Online Foundation v. Union of India & Others and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that for deduction under Section 80IA(4), the agreement must be directly between the assessee and the government/statutory body. Since the agreement was with the JV, not the assessee directly, the deduc...
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
