tax residency certificate — 328 case laws

Bharti Airtel Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5962/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.5692 और5693/दिल्ली/2019 (नि.व. 2007-08 और2008-09)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Deepesh Jain, Advocates andFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)

Rs.62,47,96,308/- Interest paid to ABN Amro : Rs.25,35,96,279/- Total Rs.87,83,92,587/- Since ABN Amro had furnished Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by Swedish Tax Authority (at page 159-160 of the paper book), the assessee on the strength of said

Sameer Shrikant Pise, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 12, Pune

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

ITA 1078/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V. Balaji, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva - Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154

appearing in Form No. 67 filed by the assessee placed at page Nos. 101 & 102 of the paper book. The assessee also furnished Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by the UK tax authorities placed at page No.9 of the paper book. We further notice that the assessee after returning back

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

ITA 1826/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. M.Mahadevan, No.24, Park Avenue Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. [Pan: Aajpm5888R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri G.Gireesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.C.Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Revenue For Ay-2013-14, Ay-2014-15 & 2019-20 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated Column-E, Herein Below:- S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F 1

For Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

tax residency, in corresponding period, in UAE w.r.t DTAA between India and UAE. The Ld.AO, inter alia, observed that by merely furnishing the tax residency certificate from UAE in the name of the assessee (obtained during 2021 for the past years) does not confer the residential status to assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 1825/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G.Gireesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

tax residency, in corresponding period, in UAE w.r.t DTAA between India and UAE. The Ld.AO, inter alia, observed that by merely furnishing the tax residency certificate from UAE in the name of the assessee (obtained during 2021 for the past years) does not confer the residential status to assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 1824/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G.Gireesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

tax residency, in corresponding period, in UAE w.r.t DTAA between India and UAE. The Ld.AO, inter alia, observed that by merely furnishing the tax residency certificate from UAE in the name of the assessee (obtained during 2021 for the past years) does not confer the residential status to assessee

DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai vs. Era Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 3096/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Bleshri Girish Agrawal, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 92C

submitted to Reserve Bank of India and Reserve Bank of India's letter dated 23 November 2015 confirming receipt of foreign funds, tax residency certificate of Thirdscroll Holding Limited and Azapel Holding Private Limited. Further valuation report of Chartered Accountant for the purpose of issue of CCD, was also filed

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद

Puspendu Sekhar Nandy, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1) International Taxation, Kolkata

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

ITA 167/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 5(2)

above. The Ld. A.R further submits that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in over emphasizing on business of foreign bank statement of irrelevant tax residency certificate and ignoring to give due weightage to relevant circumstantial evidences that proved the case of the assessee. The Ld. A.R filed few additional evidences

Shri Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Gupta, Gandhidham vs. The ITO- International Taxation, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 269/RJT/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lalsaini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 269/Rjt/2019 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Gupta, (International Taxation) Prop. Of Aqua Shipping, Suit - Gandhidham – 370210 100, Grain Merchant Association Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 297, Wd – 12B, Gandhidham – 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afcpg3849N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 172Section 172(4)Section 172(5)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

claimed as a freight beneficiary for the above subject vessel. The provisional return accompanied with certain details like booking note, certificate of incorporation, Tax residency certificate of freight beneficiary company, Indemnity bond and an undertaking stating that M/s Aqua Shipping, Gandhidham, was acting, as agents to the freight beneficiary

Sunny Trexim Private Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 645/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 40a

issued to the company. The AO after going over the response submitted by the assessee find that the assessee company did not submit tax residency certification any of the 39 parties, as a result of which, the AO added to the tune ... read with Section 194 of the Act, when the assessee did not submit tax residency certificate. The Ld. CIT(A) has also held in its impugned order that the assessee has not given any clear answer to the vital question of residency chargeability status of the brokerage income those agents

Roto World Fze, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, CPC, Banglore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/AHD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154

intimation u/s.143(1), no further relief can be granted to the Appellant in spite of the fact that tax domicile certificate equivalent to tax residency certificate from UAE authorities for the period under consideration was submitted to the learned CIT(Appeals). 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that ... Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. 7.1 The assessee has filed Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) valid from January 2018 to December 2018. It is not in dispute that the assessee earned marking commission during the year. Since

Bay Capital India Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 55, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6355/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 195Section 250Section 70Section 70(2)Section 70(3)

assessee is a company incorporated in Mauritius and licensed by the Financial Services Commission of Mauritius as Collective Investment Schemes and holds a tax residency certificate issued by the Mauritius Revenue Authority. Further, the assessee is also registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) as a Foreign

Bao Value Fund, Mumbai vs. ACIT, International Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta a/w TarangFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 68

assessee is incorporated in Mauritius and licensed by financial service commission of Mauritius. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee holds a tax residency certificate and therefore, the Short Term and the Long Term Capital Gain subject to grandfathering provision are exempt under Article-13(4) of India Mauritius DTAA

Abraham Benjamin Pavutheril, Ernakulam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ( It), Kochi

In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Abraham Benjamin Pavutheril .......... Appellant G-14 Panampilly Nagar, Cochin 682036 [Pan: Atcpp5926F] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It) .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kochi Appellant By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 90

benefit of foreign tax credit u/s. 90 of the Act of Rs. 2,71,849/- for failure of the assessee to produce the Tax Residency Certificate issued by the Government of Qatar. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed ... before us in the present appeal. 5. During the course of hearing before us the appellant filed additional evidence in the form of Tax Residency Certificate dated 08.09.2020. The same could not be produced before the lower authorities as it was obtained subsequently on completion of the assessment proceedings. Thus