VEG 'N' TABLE,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- INT. TAX 3(1)(1), DELHI

ITA 2251/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 October 2023AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)10 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) determines tax residency and entitlement to treaty benefits. Since the Revenue failed to substantiate its allegations of the assessee being a conduit company with cogent evidence, the treaty benefits were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Mauritius-resident company, claimed exemption on long-term capital gains from selling Indian shares under the India-Mauritius DTAA. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption, alleging the assessee was a conduit company set up for tax avoidance.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee, holding a valid TRC, is entitled to treaty benefits under the India-Mauritius DTAA despite allegations of being a conduit company for tax avoidance. Whether the Revenue has provided sufficient evidence to deny treaty benefits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 143(3),Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE- & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Appellant: CA Sh. Gaurav Singhal, CA
Hearing: 11.10.2023Pronounced: 31.10.2023

Captioned appeal by the assessee arises out of final

assessment order dated 20.06.2022 passed under section 143(3)

read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2018-19, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). AY: 2018-19

2.

At the outset, Registry has reported delay of 27 days in filing

the appeal. The assessee has filed the application for condonation

of delay, explaining the reasons for delay.

3.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

4.

The dispute in the present appeal is confined to

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 90

All 1,075 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →