← 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

Judgments citing tax residency certificate

Income Tax Officer ( International Taxation ) Ward Coimbatore, Coimbatore vs. Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Coimbatore

ITA 1614/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1613 & 1614/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Vs. 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) C.O No. 68/Chny/2024 (Arises In Ita No. 1614/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant/Cross Objector) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By The Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore. Vs. (International Taxation), (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Aakash Uppal, C.A : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 & 10.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024 :- 2 -:

Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Income Tax Officer ( International Taxation) Coimbatore, Coimbatore vs. Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Coimbatore

ITA 1613/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1613 & 1614/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Vs. 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) C.O No. 68/Chny/2024 (Arises In Ita No. 1614/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant/Cross Objector) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Aakash Uppal, C.A : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 & 10.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024 :- 2 -:

For Respondent: Shri Aakash Uppal, C.A
Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

General Motors Overses Disribution Coporation, Usa vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2360/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 General Motors Company Usa, Vs Acit, Circle International 1209 Orange Street, Taxation 1(3)(1), Wilmington Delaware New Delhi – 110 002 United States, Zip Code - 19801 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 General Motors Overseas Vs Acit, Circle International Distribution Corporation, Usa Taxation 1(3)(1), 2711, Centreville Roadnew Castle New Delhi – 110 002 County, Wilmington, Usa-19808 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ss Tomar, Adv. & Shri Sumeet Hemkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri VishalFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 148Section 234BSection 234c

reproduced for convenience as under:- “3.1.1 Contesting the action of the AO, the assessee has submitted that the Assessee has obtained a tax residency certificate ("TRC") from the United States Internal Revenue Service under the Act, in accordance with section 90. Further, in accordance with section 90, the Assessee ... single US federal income tax return. 4.5 After taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the Tax Residency Certificate as received from the United States Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the requirement of the law as applicable to the assessee, being

General Motors Company, Usa vs. ACIT Circlr International Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 General Motors Company Usa, Vs Acit, Circle International 1209 Orange Street, Taxation 1(3)(1), Wilmington Delaware New Delhi – 110 002 United States, Zip Code - 19801 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 General Motors Overseas Vs Acit, Circle International Distribution Corporation, Usa Taxation 1(3)(1), 2711, Centreville Roadnew Castle New Delhi – 110 002 County, Wilmington, Usa-19808 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ss Tomar, Adv. & Shri Sumeet Hemkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri VishalFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 148Section 234BSection 234c

reproduced for convenience as under:- “3.1.1 Contesting the action of the AO, the assessee has submitted that the Assessee has obtained a tax residency certificate ("TRC") from the United States Internal Revenue Service under the Act, in accordance with section 90. Further, in accordance with section 90, the Assessee ... single US federal income tax return. 4.5 After taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the Tax Residency Certificate as received from the United States Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the requirement of the law as applicable to the assessee, being

Tyco Electronics Singapore Pte Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle- Int. Tax. 3(1)(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1760/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Tyco Electronics Singapore Vs Dcit, Pte Limited, Circle Intl. Taxation Te Park-22B, Doddenakundi 3(1)(1), 2Nd Phase Industrial Area, Delhi. Whitefield Road, Bengaluru – 560 048, Karnataka. Pan: Aadct9910C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate & Ms Somya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, It-Dr & Shri Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By Assessing Officer, Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, IT-DR &
Section 143(3)

same the assessee approached DRP and filed objections. The plea of assessee before DRP was that the AO has erred in disregarding the Tax residency certificate (TRC) and other relevant documents furnished by the Company to support the fact that it is entitled to the beneficial provisions of the India ... orders of DRP. 4. After taking into consideration the material on record and the submissions, we are of the considered view that the Tax Residency Certificate, even if it is not a conclusive evidence of a tax residency of an entity, it certainly is a statutory evidence and the burden

Sanjay Ajit, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1317/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1317/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Sanjay Ajit Ito बनाम/ Flat No.69, Sri Vari Gardens, International Taxation Ward, Vkk Menon Road, New Sidhapusur, Coimbatore. Vs. Coimbatore South-641 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Fcgps-0088-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri G.C.Srivasatava (Advocate)(Virtual) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta (Jcit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.C.Srivasatava (Advocate)(Virtual) -For Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 15Section 234DSection 270ASection 5(2)Section 5(2)(a)Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the same on the ground that this expenditure was claimed by OFSSL and as per Tax Residency Certificate (TRC), no remittance tax was paid by the assessee in UK. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the assessee is in further appeal before ... revenue authorities to discharge the tax liability of the assessee in that country. 8. The assessee has also placed on record Tax Residency Certificate (Page nos. 192-193 of paper book). As per this certificate, the assessee has claimed relief for foreign earning not taxable

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

ITA 2345/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

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:

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)

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 Mauritius and 9 group companies ... Mauritius. The Company has further stated that it has nine unique Portfolio Investments (the “Portfolio Investments”). Assessee was also asked to furnish tax residency certificate of its directors, which assessee has completely failed to furnish despite giving many opportunities. it was observed that all the correspondence are made with Steven