Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT

WILD WEST DOMAINS, LLC,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), INT. TAX. , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1774/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Wild West Domains, Llc Acit, Go Daddy India Domains & Hosting Vs. Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Services Private Limited, First Floor, Taxation, 01A167, Wework Bristol Chowk, Civic Centre, Platina Tower, Mg Road, Sector-28, Minto Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. Newdelhi. Pan No.Aabcw2372H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…Page 97 to 115 of the case law paper book) wherein, following the decision of the Apex Court in Azadi Bachao (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte Ltd. [2023] 452 ITR 111, the coordinate bench of this Hon’ble Tribunal held that held that the tax authorities cannot go behind TRC as the TRC issued by the competent authority of another country is sufficient evidence to claim treaty eligibility, residential status and legal ownership. Thus, it was held that the departmental authorities could not have denied the tax tr…

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 . Veg ‘N’ Table, Vs. Dcit, 801, Tower-A 1, Circle- International Tax - Ansal Corporate Park, 3(1)(1), Sector-142, Delhi Noida Pan :Aagcv2131A (Appellant) (Respondent)

…e treaty benefits. Subsequently, the aforesaid legal position has been followed in many decisions, including the recent decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2023] 452 ITR 111 (Delhi HC). 6 | P a g e AY: 2018-19 11. The only reason on which the Assessing Officer has declined the treaty benefits to the assessee is because, according to him, the assessee is a conduit entity set up in Mauritius only for the purpose of availing treaty benefits, hence, it is a colourable device to avoid tax. Though, the Assessing Offic…

RATNASHRI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4 , NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

…impugned reopening action can not be countenanced ; (reliance is placed on:On issue of invalid reopening if made on basis of borrowed satisfaction as done in instant case; refer hon ’ble delhi high court latest ruling in case of Blackstone capital reported at 452 ITR 111. Same is proposition laid down by delhi high Court in case of Munjal Showa Ltd vs DCIT382 ITR 555 and hon’ble Gujarat high court rulings in cases of: Anilaben Rohitbhai Modi vs ITO in SCA 3526/2022 order dated 23.06.2023 (para 21 & 22) 456 ITR 607and on issue of lack of live nexus etc delhi high 6 1607/Del/2019 court latest ruling in case of C…

ACCION AFRICA-ASIA INVESTMENT COMPANY,NOIDA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 . Accion Africa-Asia Vs. Acit, Investment Company, International Taxation, C/O- Ankul Goyal, Advocate Circle-1(1)(1), Azb & Partners, A-8, Sector-4, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aajca1104H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…benefits. Subsequently, the aforesaid legal position has been followed in many decisions, including the recent decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court delivered in case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2023] 452 ITR 111 (Delhi HC). 12. The only reason on which the Assessing Officer has declined the treaty benefits to the assessee is because, according to him, the assessee is a stepping stone conduit entity set up in Mauritius only for the purpose of availing treaty benefits, hence, it is an impermissible tax avoidance arrangement. Though, the Assessing Office…

LEAPFROG FINANCIAL INCLUSION INDIA (II) LTD,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

…n’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan reported in 263 ITR 703 (SC). He also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte Ltd. vs. ACIT [2023] 452 ITR 111 (Delhi High Court). He submitted, the DRP is totally wrong in applying Article 27A to the transaction as the assessee has never claimed any benefit under Article 13(3B) of the Treaty. He submitted, all along the assessee has claimed exemption under Article 13(4) of India Mauritius DTAA, which is outside the purview of Article 27A. 8. Without pre…

LEAPFROG FINANCIAL INCLUSION INDIA (II) LTD,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

…n’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan reported in 263 ITR 703 (SC). He also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte Ltd. vs. ACIT [2023] 452 ITR 111 (Delhi High Court). He submitted, the DRP is totally wrong in applying Article 27A to the transaction as the assessee has never claimed any benefit under Article 13(3B) of the Treaty. He submitted, all along the assessee has claimed exemption under Article 13(4) of India Mauritius DTAA, which is outside the purview of Article 27A. 8. Without pre…