“treaty benefits”

Ernst and Young U.S. LLP, United States vs. ACIT, Circle International Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

field of assurance, tax, transaction and business advisory services etc to its clients across the globe including India. The assessee is eligible for availing treaty benefits as per the treaty between India and USA. 7. During the year under consideration, the assessee has offered its income

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

following observations have been made by the Committee and the same are material in the instant case: For a transparent entity, entitlement to treaty benefits will therefore first depend on whether it qualifies as a “resident”. If the State in which a partnership has been organised treats that partnership ... evidence to claim treaty eligibility, residential status and legal ownership. Thus, it was held that the departmental authorities could not have denied the tax treaty benefits to the assessee by holding that the assessee cannot be treated as tax resident of Mauritius. The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced

Bhs India Holdings, Inc., New Jersey, Usa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 1(1)(2), Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the stay application which is tagged along is dismissed being infructous

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

during assessment proceedings concluded that the assessee failed to establish that it was, during the year, tax resident of USA and entitled to treaty benefits, that the source for purchase of shares was not explained by the assessee, that it failed to establish that it acquired any capital asset (being ... assessee claims that it is a tax resident of USA. Though, in the submissions of the assessee it has not claimed any treaty benefits and consequently was not required to file TRC, the assessee has filed the same now before the DRP as a part of its submissions vide Form

Tiger Global Eight Holdings, Mauritius vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Tiger Global Eight Holdings, Vs Dcit, C/O 202 Rajnigandha International Taxation, Apartment, Circle 3(1)(1), Prof. V.S. Agashe Path, New Delhi. Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028, Maharashtra. Pan: Aafct0276M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate; Shri Manish Kant, Advocate; & Ms Amrita Shenoy & Hetal Jakharia, Cas Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

offered to tax and was claimed exempt under Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius DTAA. To which the AO had denied the treaty benefit. The DRP had sustained same and accordingly final assessment order was passed, which is under challenge by raising following grounds; 3. We find that ... assessee’s submissions were considered but assessee could not justify its commercial rationale of establishment in Mauritius except just for exploiting India Mauritius Treaty benefits. It has submitted a Tax Residency Certificate of Mauritius for the year under consideration. It has been analysed that lease agreement is signed between SANNE

Superb Mind Holdings Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1832/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2020-21) M/S. Superb Mind Holdings Ltd., C/O Anita & Gadia, Chartered Accountant, F-45, Bhagat Singh Market, New Delhi 110001 Pan Aazcs-2945-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

again observed that the case of the assessee for AY 2018-19 was similar wherein the assessee was found not eligible to treaty benefits under India-Mauritius DTAA and the long term capital gains were held taxable in India under the provisions of the Act. The ld. Counsel placed

ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Maven India Fund, Mauritius

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19

Mauritius to India The Assessee is not doing any bonafide business activity and was just being used to channelize funds to India to avail treaty benefits. The applicant company has no commercial substance. Mere possession of a TRC alone is not sufficient proof of control and management of the applicant ... holding a TRC issued by the Mauritius Authority, however, it could not be treated as a tax resident of Mauritius for availing Treaty benefits. He submitted, recently India and Mauritius have introduced a broad protocol to amend India-Mauritius DTAA, which was signed on 07.03.2024. He submitted

India Property (Mauritius) Company II, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(1)(1), New Delhi

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

case was selected for scrutiny and in pursuance to the directions of the Hon’ble DRP, the Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ld.AO’), denied the Treaty benefits and passed the final assessment order dated 10/02/2023, assessing the total income at INR 1,52,61,71,940 and raising a tax demand ... gains as per source rule of the Income Tax Act read with the relevant provision DTAA and that the assessee is not eligible for treaty benefit under clause 13(4) of the India-Mauritius Treaty. In order to reach this conclusion, the assessing officer in the DAO has discussed

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

primary intention to avoid payment of taxes. 10. With regard to the fact as to whether the assessee would be eligible for India UK Treaty benefits, the ld AO observed that - - a person who is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management ... company cannot be treated as a tax resident of UK. In view of the same, the assessee company is not entitled to any tax treaty benefits under India-UK DTAA not being a resident for tax purposes. Accordingly, its taxability is to be determined on the basis of the Income

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

primary intention to avoid payment of taxes. 10. With regard to the fact as to whether the assessee would be eligible for India UK Treaty benefits, the ld AO observed that - - a person who is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management ... company cannot be treated as a tax resident of UK. In view of the same, the assessee company is not entitled to any tax treaty benefits under India-UK DTAA not being a resident for tax purposes. Accordingly, its taxability is to be determined on the basis of the Income

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

primary intention to avoid payment of taxes. 10. With regard to the fact as to whether the assessee would be eligible for India UK Treaty benefits, the ld AO observed that - - a person who is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management ... company cannot be treated as a tax resident of UK. In view of the same, the assessee company is not entitled to any tax treaty benefits under India-UK DTAA not being a resident for tax purposes. Accordingly, its taxability is to be determined on the basis of the Income

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

primary intention to avoid payment of taxes. 10. With regard to the fact as to whether the assessee would be eligible for India UK Treaty benefits, the ld AO observed that - - a person who is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management ... company cannot be treated as a tax resident of UK. In view of the same, the assessee company is not entitled to any tax treaty benefits under India-UK DTAA not being a resident for tax purposes. Accordingly, its taxability is to be determined on the basis of the Income

Superb Mind Holding Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

assessee company is also not present in Mauritius. In view of the aforesaid facts, the assessee company is not entitled to the treaty benefits of India-Mauritius DTAA. 12. Taxability of the consideration in the hands of the assessee company: I.T.A.No.1568/Del/2022 12.1 Taxability of income of a non-resident ... relevant provisions of the DTAA. In this case as stated in preceding paragraphs, the assessee is not entitled to any treaty benefits. Therefore, the chargeability of such consideration would be decided under the provisions of Income-tax Act only. As per Income-tax Act, a non-resident is chargeable