“TRC”

International TaxSection 90(4)Section 90(4)456 judgments

The decision most relied on for TRC is India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India (341 ITR 1), cited in 295 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on TRC

India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India

341 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court

295

citing judgments

Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

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.

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.

SMS Concast AG v. DDIT, 110 ITR (T) 138 (Delhi-Trib)

157 Taxmann.com 64 · 2023 · Reported

citing judgments

Receipts for offshore designing and engineering services are not taxable in India if there is no permanent establishment (PE) in India. A payer withholding tax does not automatically make the receipts taxable in India.

Judgments citing TRC

Fox International Channels (Us) Inc. (Now Known As "Tfcf" International Channels (Us) Inc'), Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int Taxation) - 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 948/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blefox International Channels (Us) Inc V. Dcit (Intl. Taxation)-4(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building {Now Known As Tfcf International Nariman Point Channels (Us). Inc} Mumbai - 400021 C/O. Star House Urmi Estate, 95 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel (W), Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaacf8387J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 9(1)(vi)

Indian sub-continent. FIC is eligible for the benefits of the India - USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and has filed a copy of TRC to that effect which is placed on record. FIC primarily had two streams of revenues from India i.e. revenues from advertisement and revenues from distribution ... under Article 12 of Indian–Mauritius Tax Treaty. Undisputedly, the assessee is a tax resident of Mauritius and holding a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC). Therefore, the assessee is entitled to avail the benefit of India – Mauritius Tax Treaty. Before we proceed to deal with the issue, it is necessary

Amit Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1941/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: the lower authorities and is forming part of the records. It is not in dispute that the services were rendered by the assessee only in Netherlands during the year under consideration. However, the assessee was also sent on deputation to India on behalf of Akzo Netherlands. For administrative convenience, the Amit Jain vs. ACIT Page 3 of 9

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 192Section 9Section 90

rendered services outside India (i.e Netherlands) and was a tax resident of Netherlands by virtue of domestic laws of Netherlands. The Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) received from Netherlands Tax Authorities was placed before the lower authorities and is forming part of the records. It is not in dispute that

The Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

ITA 1686/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 31, Tanglin Road, #03,-04, St. Circle-3(1)(1), Regis Residences, Singapore, International Taxation, Singapore, Singapore, 247912 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagct8026Q Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Anmol, Adv Shri Priya, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 282A(1)

long term capital loss of Rs. 3,16,74,056/- was carry forward in subsequent years. The Assessee furnished the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by Singapore Tax Authorities before the ld AO to prove the point that it is tax resident of Singapore and accordingly entitled for treaty benefits ... Capital Pte Ltd. The said company is represented by sole Director Mr. Sumeet Nanda. Mr. Sumeet Nanda is a tax resident of Singapore. The TRC of Mr Sumeet Nanda as issued by the Singapore Tax Authorities was placed before the ld AO. The holding company of the Assessee

Nan Lian Ship Management Llc, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD)(Int Tax)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 976/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenan Lian Ship Management Llc V. Jcit (Osd) (Intl. Tax) – 3(3)(1) 303, The Atrium Center Room No. 1630, 16Th Floor Khalid Bin Al Walled Road Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Bur Dubai Po Box No. 82289 Dubai, Uae Nan Lian Ship Management Llc C/O. Nishit M. Gandhi Chambers 2 & 3, Ground Floor Cosmos Trade Place, Khatau Building Alkesh Dinesh Mody Marg Opp. Bombay Stock Exchange Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aagcn0478E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 172Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

failed to appreciate that the Appellant is a Non-resident Shipping Company and the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) to that effect for the relevant year was furnished and which should have been considered before arriving at its conclusion; (iii) The Ld. DRP as well as the Ld. AO erred

Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1735/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Abhishek Kumar, Noida vs. Pr. CIT, Noida

ITA 1141/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarabhishek Kumar, Vs. Pr Cit, E-9, Sector-41, Noida, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Artpk4445M Assessee By : Sh. Raghav Sharma, Ca Ms. Chandrima Chaudhury, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amitabh Kumar Sinha, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT DR

Section 263

Builders vs DCIT passed by Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in ITA 2102/2008 4. CIT vs Poddar Cement passed by Hon'ble Supreme court in TRC no 9-10 of 1986 5. Rakesh Kumar vs CIT passed by Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in ITA 6187/2015 6. Replying to the above ... Placing reliance on the judgment Abhishek Kumar of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd, in TRC No. 9-10 of 1986, order of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Rakesh Builders Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 2102/Mum/2008 the ld counsel

Sandeep Maloo, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 613/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsandeep Maloo Vs. Dcit-Cc-1(1) Shree Radhey, 21-C, Pratishtha Bhawan, Barwara House, M.K. Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajasthan- 302001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afcpm7905F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Jayant Bhatt Respondent By : Kishore Dhule Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-47, Mumbai, Dated 20.02.2023 For A.Y. 2013- 14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Kishore Dhule

Section 132Section 153ASection 68

P a g e | 1 Sandeep Maloo Vs. DCIT, CC-1(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH

Saif 2-Se Investments Mauritius Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation (3)(1)(2) Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 1812/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

assessee operates as an investment holding company for undertaking various investments. He has also noted that the assessee holds a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by Mauritius Tax Authorities for the year under consideration. The assessee also holds a valid Global Business Licence (Category 1) (GBL-1) issued ... claim of exemption by 3 | P a g e AY: 2018-19 submitting that, being a tax resident of Mauritius holding a valid TRC, it is entitled to treaty benefits, however, the Assessing Officer remained unconvinced. He observed, though, assessee’s principal activity is to hold investments, however, assessee

Leapfrog Financial Inclusion India (II) Ltd, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 366/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

there cannot be any dispute with regard to the residential status of the assessee as the Mauritius tax authorities have issued Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) in favour of the assessee. He submitted, once the assessee holds a valid TRC, it is entitled to ITA Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 And Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 ... considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. Undisputed facts are, the assessee is a tax resident of Mauritius and holds a valid TRC issued by the Mauritius tax authorities. It is the claim of the assessee that the sale of shares out of which capital gain arose were

Leapfrog Financial Inclusion India (II) Ltd, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 365/DEL/2023[2019-2]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Sarva Capital Llc, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2289/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sarva Capital Llc, Versus Acit, Circle 3(1)(2), C/O Dinesh Mehta & Co., Cas, International Taxation, 21, Dayanand Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan: Aaccl0102B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Hiren Mehta, Ca & Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

assessee company is just a conduit and the real owner is the shareholders/investors who are tax residents of different countries. 3. The TRC is not sufficient to establish the tax residency if the substance establishes otherwise. 4. The assessee company is also not a beneficial owner of income as control ... submitted, the assessee is not only incorporated in Mauritius but also a resident of Mauritius, which is demonstrated from the Tax 5 Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by Mauritius revenue authorities. He submitted, assessee’s registered office is situated in Mauritius and it maintains regular books of account and other statutory

Fedex Express International B.V., Mumbai vs. ACIT( International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2464/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 9(1)(i)

paid to the Indian AES 2,75,04,40,332 [A+B] 12. Since, assessee was tax resident of Netherland holding a valid TRC elected to be taxed in accordance with India- Netherland DTAA filed return of income at ‘Nil’ justifying through a detailed note in the return of income

Fedex Express International B.V., Mumbai vs. ACIT( International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2463/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 9(1)(i)

Spark44 Demand Creation Partners Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the ground of appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1294/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhspark44 Demand Creation Vs. Assistant Commissioner Partners Private Limited Of Income Tax, 91 Springboard Business Centralized Processing Hub Pvt. Ltd., 175, Cell-Tds Kagalwala House, 2Nd Tds Cpc, Aayakar Floor, Vidyanagri Marg, Bhawan, Sector -3, Kalina, Santacruz (E) Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Mumbai – 400098 Up- 401010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aawcs3113M Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Nimit Vora Respondent By : Ram Krishna Kedia Date Of Hearing 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 17.02.2023 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell Tds (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Ld. Ao') In Determining Tds Liability @ 20% On Amount Payable To Non-Resident Payee Towards Inter-Company Management Fees By Applying Provisions Of Section 206Aa R.W.S. 195 Of The Act In The Absence Of Pan Of Non-Resident Payee. 2. The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Following:

For Appellant: Nimit VoraFor Respondent: Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 154Section 195Section 200ASection 206A

apply on payment of FTS to non-resident deductee, who do not have PAN in India Provided requisite details mentioned in Rule 37BC i.e TRC Form 10F have been furnished. P a g e | 4 Spark44 Demand Creation Partners Pvt Ltd. Vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS 5. The facts and circumstances

Sapein Funds Ltd., Mauritius vs. CIT (International Taxation) Delhi-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee company is just a conduit and the real owner is the shareholders/investors who are tax residents of different countries. 3. The TRC is not sufficient to establish the tax residency if the substance establishes otherwise. 4. The assessee company is also not a beneficial owner of income as control ... owner of the income is the investors. Therefore, a conduit company would also fail the test of beneficial ownership. It was argued that the TRC is only a first step but it is not a final to accord benefits of the treaty provisions. 31. In nutshell, the revenue argued that

Tata Nyk Shipping Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Int.Tax. Circle-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1766/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anshuman Pattnaik, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 263Section 44B

highly debatable issue requiring interpretation of treaty provisions. It is more so in a case where the assessee is holder of valid TRC as TRC is recognized to carry proof of residency. 24. As could be seen, holding the assessee not to be a tax resident of Singapore, learned ... amounts received by the assessee from operation of ships in international traffic would 7 Tata NYK Shipping Pte Ltd be exempt. Therefore, when the TRC was available before the Assessing Officer, in a way, he was justified in allowing benefit to the assessee under Article 8 of the Treaty. Though

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

In the result, the appeals of assesse are partly allowed

ITA 5122/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2261 & 5122/Mum/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14) Ubs Ag Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Level 3, 2 North Avenue Income Tax (It)-4(3)(1) Maker Maxity, Bandra Air India Building, Kurla Complex, Bandra Nariman Point East, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu5003G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Manoj Kumar

Section 234BSection 37(1)

SEBI) for the purpose of making investment in Indian debt securities. The assesse is a tax resident of Switzerland holding a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) for the year under consideration. During the previous year relevant to assessment year 2012-13, the assesse has a bank branch in India (Mumbai Branch

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

In the result, the appeals of assesse are partly allowed

ITA 2261/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Manoj Kumar

Section 234BSection 37(1)

Jaya Ashok Kumar Awasthi, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tx Ward-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 677/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)

resident, carrying on business in Dubai. Hence she may be eligible for treaty benefits. However, the assessee has not filed “Tax Residency Certificate” (TRC) in order to avail treaty benefits. Hence the treaty benefits were not extended to the assessee by the AO. Further, the assessee has not furnished proper ... assessed the same. The Ld DRP confirmed the additions. In respect of DTAA benefits, the Ld DRP noticed that the assessee has filed the TRC in the paper book filed for AY 2017-18. Hence the Ld DRP has directed the AO to examine the claim of the assessee

Jaya Ashok Kumar Awasthi, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tx Ward-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 676/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)