← All Phrases

“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

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

Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., (International Taxation), Circle-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1220/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1220/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Cathay Pacific Airways Limited,…………….…Appellant Room No. 14, 3Rd Floor, New Integrated Cargo Terminal, Nscbi Airport, Kolkata-700052 [Pan:Aabcc5644E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent (International Taxation), Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Em Bye-Pass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Sm. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 14, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 3

earned interest income of Rs.1,60,62,140/- in India. The appellant is a tax resident of Hong Kong and has a valid Tax Residency Certificate for the concerned AY 2020-21. As per Article 11 of India-Hong Kong DTAA, interest income shall be taxable at the rate

Sky High II Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1550/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

sustainable. With respect to applicability of PPT on merits of the case the Tribunal held that –  The assessee had a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by Irish authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rulings in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan&Anr. (2004) 10 SCC 1 and Vodafone

Sky High Lxxx Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1549/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

sustainable. With respect to applicability of PPT on merits of the case the Tribunal held that –  The assessee had a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by Irish authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rulings in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan&Anr. (2004) 10 SCC 1 and Vodafone

Sky High Lxxviii Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1548/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

sustainable. With respect to applicability of PPT on merits of the case the Tribunal held that –  The assessee had a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by Irish authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rulings in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan&Anr. (2004) 10 SCC 1 and Vodafone

Sky High Xc Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1547/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 234B

sustainable. With respect to applicability of PPT on merits of the case the Tribunal held that The assessee had a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by Irish authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rulings in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan&Anr. (2004) 10 SCC 1 and Vodafone

Sky High Lxxix Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1546/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

sustainable. With respect to applicability of PPT on merits of the case the Tribunal held that –  The assessee had a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by Irish authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rulings in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan&Anr. (2004) 10 SCC 1 and Vodafone

Lummus Technology Heat Transfer B.V, Gurugram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax, Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.3741/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2021-22) Lummus Technology Heat Transfer B.V, Second Floor, Infinity Tower B, Dlf Cyber City, Sector 25A, Phase Ii, Gurugram, Haryana 122001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabca-9045-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurugram, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Haryana 122001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate, Ms. Reema Grewal, Chartered Accountant & Ms. Snigdha Gautam, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 06/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.10.2023, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 2. The Gist Of Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Assailing The Assessment Order Is As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80G

tax refund. The said income tax refund and interest thereon pertains to PE i.e. the Branch Office in India. The assessee holds valid Tax Residency Certificate of the Netherlands. Thus, the Income Tax refund received by the assesssee should be taxed at treaty rate. 4.4. The last issue in appeal

Ebay Singapore Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2378/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)Section 253

facilitate export sales from Indian sellers to overseas buyers. The assessee has always been a resident of Singapore and has duly obtained the Tax Residency Certificates (hereinafter referred to as 'TRC') for the calendar years 2018 and 2019. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold its shares in Flipkart

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Netherlands vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Intl. Tax. 2(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarinmarsat Solutions B. V., Vs. Acit, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, International Taxation, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Circle-2(1)(1), Delhi (West), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacci9974L Assessee By : Shri Hiten Thakkar, Adv Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

tax resident of Netherland and it is eligible to claim the treaty benefits as per Indian- Netherland DTAA. A copy of Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) obtained from Inmarsat Solutions B. V. Netherland tax authorities has been filed. Further, the assessee has submitted that it does not have a Permanent Establishment

ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Durr India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly-allowed

ITA 1638/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1638/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit, Durr India Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle 1 (1), Vs. 471, Prestige Polygon, Chennai. Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. Pan: Aaacd 3568P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40

legal principles, the taxpayer is entitled to avail the benefits of the lower DDT rate in this case. The appellant has produced the tax residency certificate in this regard to the person to whom the dividend has been paid. In view of the above, the claim of the appellant

ACIT(It)-4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Wells Fargo Bank National Association, Mumbai

ITA 3795/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

qualifies as a resident of USA as per Article 4 of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and holds a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by the Revenue authorities of USA. Assessee is a non-resident and has earned the below mentioned incomes during the year under consideration

ACIT(It)-4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Wells Fargo Bank National Association, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3794/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

qualifies as a resident of USA as per Article 4 of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and holds a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by the Revenue authorities of USA. Assessee is a non-resident and has earned the below mentioned incomes during the year under consideration

Prakash Raman, Vadodara vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward 2 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 1115/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1115/2025 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Prakash Raman, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pent House No.602, 6Th Floor, (International Taxation), Pincode@55, Vasant Vihar Road, Ward-2(1), Tp-1, Opp. To Darshanam Chennai. Splendora, Bhayli, Vadodara, Gujarat-391 410. [Pan:Aappp0380F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, C.A (Virtual). प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mrs. R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr.Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Mrs. R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 234BSection 5Section 90

erred in denying the benefit of the India - USA DTAA merely on the pretext that the Appellant had failed to furnish a tax residency certificate ['TRC'] issued by the Tax Revenue authorities of United States of America; without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has been able to obtain ... entitled to exemption under the provisions of article 16 of the India-USA treaty. In the instant case, the assessee has filed the tax residency certificate from the Republic of Korea for the year 2018. This has been reiterated in the assessee's submissions dated 8/10/2024. Thus, the claim

Orbis Real Estate Fund I, Hyderabad (Auth. Rep.) vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2 - 2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 785/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sourabh K, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narender Kumar Naik

Section 143(3)Section 154

that, the assessee is a foreign company incorporated in Mauritius and is a tax resident of that country. The assessee held a valid Tax Residency Certificate (“TRC”) issued by the Mauritian authorities for the relevant assessment year. In 2006, the assessee invested in equity and Fully Compulsorily Convertible Preference shares

Saligrama Rajendra Prasad Rashmi, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 2414/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

income from other sources being interest income from foreign country in return of income under the Act and by mistake selected that no Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) is available. However, the assessee claimed that the impugned income as exempt income under the Act and DTAA. The CPC while processing ... other sources” instead of correctly showing it as exempt income under the DTAA. Further, in the return, the question on Schedule OS regarding Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) was mistakenly marked as “No” instead of “Yes.” This error was unintentional and due to the same, an intimation under section

M/S Grob-Werke Gmbh & Co. Kg, Germany vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl Txn Circle, Vizag, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 176/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2022-23) Vs. M/S. Grob – Werke Gmbh & Co. Kg Acit Industriestrasse 4, 87719 Mindelheim International Taxation Circle Income Tax Office Germany, Pincode - 87719 Infinity Towers Sankaramatam Road [Pan:Aaifg4270G] Visakhapatnam - 530016 करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Nikhil Ajit Mutha, Ca : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025

Section 115ASection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195

assessee’s firm in his income tax filing in Germany. The Ld. AO noticed that assessee as firm has not submitted the tax residence certificate (TRC) and the income details of M/s.GROB Verwaltungs GmbH who is tax resident of Austria. In the absence of theabove documentary evidences ... demand of INR 46,38,382/-considering applicability of surcharge and cess under the provisions of the Act. 3. Ground 3: Disregarding valid Tax Residency Certificate issued by Tax Authorities of Germany In the facts and circumstances of the case

Zubin Jehanbux Gandevia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1789/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5(2)

should be noted that for the purpose of availing treaty benefit, one shall be required to provide, amongst other documents, a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) for the period in which the treaty benefit is being claimed The Assessee has a valid TRC for calendar year 2021 as well

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2022-

ITA 558/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 558/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 & S.A. No.: 50/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.558/Chny/2025] धनिाजरण वर्ज/Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krisnamoorthy, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

submitted the paper book of 282 pages containing the written submission, return :-4-: ITA. No: 558/Chny/2025 SA No: 50/Chny/2025 of income with 26AS, Tax residency certificate, Order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, agreement and sample invoice copies etc,. The Ld. AR further submitted that the impugned issue

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

ITA 2396/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax It 3.1.2, Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai vs. Kuwait Investment Authority, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4207/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)

reasoning and therefore. it cannot be endorsed." 14. It would not be out of place to refer to the Amiri Decree and the tax residency certificate which is as under:- "Article 1 An independent public authority shall be established with juridical status to be named the "Public Investment Authority ... Government of Kuwait for the purpose of managing investment of Government of the State of Kuwait. It has been claimed that the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by Ministry of Finance, Kuwait, has also certified that the appellant company is a resident of the State of Kuwait and Government Corporate