“tax residency certificate”

International TaxSection 90(4)Section 90(4)328 judgments

The decision most relied on for tax residency certificate is CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. (340 ITR 333), cited in 161 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on tax residency certificate

CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.

340 ITR 333 · 2012 · High Court

161

citing judgments

A deductor's bonafide belief or reliance on a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) can influence whether they are deemed an 'assessee in default' under Section 195 for failing to deduct tax at source on payments to non-residents. The decision clarifies the due diligence required when interpreting tax treaties and TRCs for TDS compliance.

Sanofi Pasteur Holding SA v. Department of Revenue

354 ITR 316 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Gains from the indirect transfer of shares in a foreign company holding Indian shares are not taxable in India under the relevant tax treaty, which is considered a self-contained code to be interpreted plainly. Creating corporate structures or special purpose vehicles for investment to secure tax benefits is a legitimate business activity.

Edenred Pte. Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (International

118 Taxmann.com 2 · 2020 · Reported

citing judgments

The case is authority for the proposition that where a tax treaty provides for a more beneficial treatment than the Income Tax Act, the treaty provisions will prevail, provided certain conditions under section 90(2) are met.

Judgments citing tax residency certificate

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi vs. Sabre Decision Technologies International Llc, Usa

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7354/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

within the meaning of Section 9 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 12. It was stated that the assessee does not hold a valid Tax Residency Certificate ('TRC') issued by tax authorities in United States of America ('USA') and hence the benefit of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA ... assessee is a Delaware based LLC which operates its business from US. It has however been submitted by the assessee that the Tax Residency Certificate of the US is not available with the company and therefore treaty benefits under the DTAA are not available to the assessee. The interpretation

Sabre Decision Technologies International Llc, New Delhi vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5782/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT It-3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 1510/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2003-2004

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

name was changed from WSG Cricket Pte Ltd. to Global Cricket Corporation Pte Limited with effect from 22.01.2001. 2.2 GCC, holding valid tax residency certificate(s) issued by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore for the relevant assessment year(s), claimed benefit of the provisions of the Agreement for Avoidance

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) - 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3135/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Oxford University Press Ai, Mumbai vs. DCIT International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2186/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 194H

serve as a nodal point where the books to be sold are distributed to the dealers. The assessee furnished a copy of the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) duly issued by the HM, Revenue & Customs , UK. The assessee submitted that it being a resident of UK, shall therefore be entitled

Ubs Ag, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1)

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 842/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 92C

Board of India (‘SEBI’) for the purpose of making investment in Indian debt securities. The assessee is a tax resident of Switzerland, holding Tax Residency Certificate for the year under consideration. During the year under consideration, the assessee has a branch in India, which constitutes the Permanent Establishment

DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ubs Ag, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1347/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 92C

Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited (in Liquidation), Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.509/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. (In Liquidation) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1),Mumbai, 18Th Floor, Room No.1811, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2022 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2 2. Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That She Is Not Pressing Ground No.1 Of Appeal Challenging Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Ms.Jasmin AmalsadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 147

similar nature”. There is no dispute that the assessee before us is a company incorporated in, and fiscally domiciled in, Mauritius. The Tax Residency Certificate filed by the assessee company is placed on record. The treaty entitlement of the assessee is not in doubt. What the treaty protects

DCIT Intl Tax Cir-4(3) (2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Win on Shipping, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 2079/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla/For Respondent: Shri Somendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 90(4)

Assessing Officer noticed that the Assessee had claimed tax relief of INR.65,54,109/- in terms of the Tax Treaty. However, the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) furnished by the Assessee was for the period commencing on 31.12.2015 and ending on 30.12.2016. Since the Assessee did not hold a valid ... beneficial provision to the assessee is that once this provision is complied with in the sense that the assessee furnishes the tax residency certificate in the prescribed format, the Assessing Officer is denuded of the powers to requisition further details in support of the claim of the assessee

ACIT 25 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Anjana Laxmidas Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7944/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 25 (2) Room Number 220, Second Srimati Anjana Laxmidas Floor, Vora Kautilya Bhavan 1202 – C, Elita, N Dutta Vs. Marg, Behind D N Nagar Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station, Mumbai – 53 Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv0293L Co 70/Mumbai/2021 (Assessment Years 2016 – 17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Srimati Anjana Laxmidas Tax – 25 (2) Vora Room Number 220, Second 1202 – C, Elita, N Dutta Floor, Vs. Marg, Behind D N Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Police Station, Mumbai – 53 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha CIT DR

Section 143Section 68

stated that as the trust is a resident of Jersey no income tax returns were filed, as it was not required. The tax residency certificate was also not required as per the applicable laws of Jersey. 9. The learned assessing officer did not accept the submission of the Assessee

ITO (International Taxation) 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajeev Suresh Gehi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 792/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is Delayed By 14 Days. In The Present Appeal, The Impugned Order Dated 11-02-2022 Was Received By The Revenue On The Same Date. Thus, As Per The Provisions Of Section 253(3) Of The Act, The Revenue Was Required The Filed The Appeal Within 60 Days From The Received The Order. However, The Revenue Filed Appeal, For The Year Under 2 Shri Rajeev Suresh Gehi

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)

entitled to the benefits of the Indo UAE tax treaty. We are right now dealing with an assessment year in which tax residency certificate was not even mandatory, but quite fairly, that aspect has not even been raised before us. Coming to the taxability under the Indo UAE tax treaty

Barclays Capital Mauritius Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, It 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7209/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.7209/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2016-17) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1) 4Th Floor, Room No.427, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate With Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala & Shri Harshit Sangoi. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Milind S. Chavan & Nihar Samal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate with Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala &For Respondent: S/Shri Milind S. Chavan & Nihar Samal

Section 143(3)

Rakyan Beverages Private Limited, Raigarh vs. ACIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane (DR)

Section 68

also placed on record. In relation to Saama Capital III Ltd, the assessee had furnished copy of its PAN card, financial statements, Tax Residency Certificate, GBL License and Certificate of Incorporation. It was pointed out that the share premium to the tune of Rs.48,21,36,180/- were received from ... profile of the foreign investors and the assets being managed by them; - Copy of Global Business License of both foreign investors; - Copy of Tax Residency Certificate of Saama Capital; - Copy of FIRC issued by RBI; and - Copy of FC-GPR submitted in relation to receipt of foreign investments 10. Taking

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 655/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Das

Section 115OSection 14A

allowed for statistical purposes. 077. Before us, there is no information about the country of residence of those shareholders, whether those shareholders have Tax Residency certificate of that country, there is no submission whether the dividend income is income of shareholders and about how the assessee will claim refund

Shri Prabhukumar Aiyappa Kullatira, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3048/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 5(1)

sold and claimed exemption. No certificate issued by tax authority of UAE with regard to the company is submitted. However, fiar tax purposes. ,tax residency certificate is one of the conclusive proofs ..fbr establishing tax residency. Assessee was specifically requisitioned to prove tax residency of UAE in accordance with

ITO, (It)-2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S International Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy & Broking Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2823/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2823/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S International Ito(It)-2(2)(2), Reinsurance & R. No. 1725, 17Th Floor, Air Insurance Consultancy India Building, Nariman & Broking Services Pvt. Point, बिधम/ Ltd. Mumbai-400 021 Vs. 15Th Floor, B-Wing, Nirmal Building, 241/242, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaci2859J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Atul T. Suraiya, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2019 Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, LdFor Respondent: Shri Atul T. Suraiya, Ld

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

liable to tax in 4 I.T.A. No. 2823/Mum/2019 M/s International Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy & Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. India; and in support, tax residency certificates, Form 10F and PE declaration have been filed. 3. In the proceedings u/s 201, the assessee stated that it is an IRDA license reinsurance broker

ACIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industrial Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5688/MUM/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5688/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Reliance Acit (Ltu-2), Industries Ltd. 29Th Floor, Centre-1, बिधम/ Maker Chamber Iv, World Trade Center, 3Rd Floor, 222, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 005 Mumbai-400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacr5055K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. Ar By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.06.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-57

For Appellant: Shri Milind ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld

Section 195Section 195(1)

payment to be made in FY 2017-18 under the said work order was Rs. 4.50 crores approx. The assessee also filed the tax residency certificate of PTAI which was tax resident of USA and it was also stated that PTAI did not had permanent establishment in India, therefore

Blackstone Fp Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd., Mauritius vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Circle-1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 981/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 154

registered as a foreign venture capital investor (FVCI) with the Securities and Exchange Board of India. The assessee has also been issued a „tax residency certificate‟ by the Mauritian Revenue Authority. During the relevant previous year, the assssee has sold 8,31,67,132 equity shares of CMS Info Systems

Blackstone Fp Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd., Mauritius vs. DCIT Intl Tax Cir.1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1725/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 154