“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

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 988/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Appeals) rejected this plea of the assessee on the ground that the payee is stated to be Docusiign Inc. of USA, however tax residency certificate was not submitted. He observed that as per section 90 of the Act, the benefit of a DTAA between two countries is available ... that this claim of the assessee regarding non-chargeability of income paid could be examined in light of the DTAA, only when the tax residency certificate is submitted in respect of payee. Otherwise, it would amount to contravention of section 90(4) of the Act. Hence, in the absence

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 987/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri

Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Tribunal in the case of Sandvik AB v. ACIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 69 (Pune Trib.). The ld.AR also submitted that the tax residency certificate GRAPA stating that GRAPA is a resident of United States (US) for the purpose of US Taxation was already submitted before the CIT(A). Page

Ups Asia Group Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1220/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(i)

minimal facts need to be taken note of. The assessee before us is a foreign telecasting company incorporated in Mauritius and having a tax residency certificate of Mauritius. It sells advertising time and collects subscription revenues through its Indian affiliates Zee Telefilms Limited and El Zee, but its claim

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri

Section 14ASection 35

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

Ruttonsha International Rectifier Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO -13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6035/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 6035/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ruttonsha International बिधम/ Ito-13(3)(2) Room No.227, 2Nd Floor, Rectifier Ltd Vs. 139/141, B- Wing, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Solaris Building No.1, Saki Road, Mumbai-400020. Vihar Road, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2816E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Homiyar Madan Revenue By: Shri Abdul Hakeem सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Assessing Officer Wherein The Assessing Officer Added Back Expenditure Failing To Appreciate That Each Item Was Below The Value Or Rs.5,000/- & Was In The Nature Of Repair & Replacement Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri Homiyar MadanFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

that the auditor has certified that the payment was made to the person resident outside India and no tax was deductable as tax residency certificate was received. The payment was in respect of commission on sales which were effected in USA with the ITA. No.6035/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 assistance ... resident agent. As such there is no requirement to deduct TDS and the disallowance cannot be upheld. The tax residency certificate is attached as Annexure-D. The claim of the assessee is nowhere discussed and examined. This issue is also required to be examined

ITO, TDS, Ward- 1(1)(2), New Delhi vs. Bhartiya Urban Infrastructure and Land Development, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 5559/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gangadhar Panda, CIT- DR

Section 13(4)Section 133(6)Section 195(2)Section 197(1)Section 201Section 201(1)

tax on such remittances. 4. The assessee filed the following documents in the course of hearing: • Copy of the Form 15 CA & 15CB. • Tax Residency Certificate in respect of the remittee. • Copy of the Acknowledgement of the ITR for the Assessment Year 2014-15 Copy of the audited accounts

Inter Continental Hotels Group (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4524/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 144C(3)

development of workforce; and as well as Co-ordinate international • resourcing and manpower planning and manage talent. secondment opportunities. 11. The Assessee submitted Tax Residency Certificate of Singapore. Therefore, by virtue of provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, IHG AP claimed the shelter of the provisions

Expeditors International of Washington Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1705/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9

through wholly or majority-owned subsidiaries. The assessee, a tax resident of USA as per the domestic laws of USA and filed its tax residency certificate vide submission dated 13.01.2015. In India, the assessee provides services through its wholly-owned subsidiary Expeditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd. During the year under