“LOB clause”

HAREON SOLAR SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

books of account which is higher than the minimum stipulated SG $ 2 lakh as per DTAA. Thus, conditions as stipulated under Article , 24A LOB clause is satisfied. The assessee relied upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Fullertone Financial Holdings Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT reported ... other hand, submitted that India has entered into DTAA with Singapore. Our attention was drawn to Article 24A(LOB clause), and our attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nestle India. It was submitted that the assessee is not having

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

vide letter dated 29 May 2012 to the Assessee, is incorrect and bad in law. III. In the absence of Limitation of Benefit (“LOB”) clause, the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA cannot be denied: 19. The Assessee submits that the DTAA between India and Mauritius as it was in force ... year under consideration did not contain any LOB clause which restricted the benefit available under Article 13(4) of the DTAA nor provided for any condition to be fulfilled for claiming the benefit of Article 13(4) of the DTAA. 20. It is important to note that under the India

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

vide letter dated 29 May 2012 to the Assessee, is incorrect and bad in law. III. In the absence of Limitation of Benefit (“LOB”) clause, the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA cannot be denied: 19. The Assessee submits that the DTAA between India and Mauritius as it was in force ... year under consideration did not contain any LOB clause which restricted the benefit available under Article 13(4) of the DTAA nor provided for any condition to be fulfilled for claiming the benefit of Article 13(4) of the DTAA. 20. It is important to note that under the India

TIGER GLOBAL EIGHT HOLDINGS,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION CIRCLE 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

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:

further submitted that Article 13(4) of tax treaty as applicable in the current facts is not subject to any LOB clause. 11 8. It is submitted that all the documentation were placed before the Ld. AO in support of claim that the Assessee is managed and controlled

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI vs. MAVEN INDIA FUND, MAURITIUS

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19

though, is subject to tax, however, 7 beneficial tax rate would apply in terms of Article 13(3B). He submitted, the limitation of benefit (LOB) clause under Article 27A of the Treaty, applies to Article 13(3B) and not 13(4). He submitted, even the LOB clause is not applicable

SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

said paragraph to make his point that paragraph 97 upholds Circular 789 on residence and beneficial ownership in the absence of Limitation of Benefits (LOB) clause, which is admittedly not applicable in the present case as Article 27A to the Mauritius DTAA was inserted with effect from 1st July ... conclusivity of the TRC are also usefully quoted as under: “97 We are, therefore, of the view that in the absence of LOB Clause and the presence of Circular No.789 of 2000 and TRC certificate, on the residence and beneficial interest/ownership, tax department cannot at the time of sale/disinvestment/exit from

SARVA CAPITAL LLC,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

DTAA, as the shares were acquired prior to 01.04.2017 and the amended provisions of Article 13 as well as the limitation of benefit (LOB) clause as provided under Article 27A of the Treaty would not be applicable as it is applicable only with reference to Article ... Mauritius, as the board meetings are mostly through video conferencing. He submitted, since, the share holders are residents of countries, who have LOB clause incorporated in their respective Treaties in India, they have set up the assessee’s company in Mauritius as a conduit for the purpose of Treaty shopping

ACCION AFRICA-ASIA INVESTMENT COMPANY,NOIDA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 . Accion Africa-Asia Vs. Acit, Investment Company, International Taxation, C/O- Ankul Goyal, Advocate Circle-1(1)(1), Azb & Partners, A-8, Sector-4, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aajca1104H (Appellant) (Respondent)

submitted, this is further fortified from the fact that neither the Assessing Officer nor learned DRP have invoked the Limitation of Benefit (LOB) clause under Article 27A of the treaty. Thus, he submitted, without establishing the fact through cogent evidence that the assessee ... invoked the provisions of GAAR as provided under Chapter XA of the Act. Even, the Departmental Authorities have not invoked the LOB clause as provided under Article 27A of India – Mauritius DTAA. Thus, facts on record clearly indicate that the departmental authorities were accepting the fact that the shares

LEAPFROG FINANCIAL INCLUSION INDIA (II) LTD,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

held that the benefit provided under Article 13(3B) is not available to a shell/conduit company in terms of the Limitation of Benefit (LOB) clause enshrined in Article 27A of India Mauritius tax treaty. Accordingly, they uphold the decision of the Assessing Officer. 7. Before us, Learned Counsel appearing ... Whereas, Learned DRP has observed that the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit under Article 13(3B) in view of the LOB clause contained under Article 27A of the tax treaty. Keeping in perspective the aforesaid factual position, we proceed to decide the issue of assessee’s entitlement under

LEAPFROG FINANCIAL INCLUSION INDIA (II) LTD,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

held that the benefit provided under Article 13(3B) is not available to a shell/conduit company in terms of the Limitation of Benefit (LOB) clause enshrined in Article 27A of India Mauritius tax treaty. Accordingly, they uphold the decision of the Assessing Officer. 7. Before us, Learned Counsel appearing ... Whereas, Learned DRP has observed that the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit under Article 13(3B) in view of the LOB clause contained under Article 27A of the tax treaty. Keeping in perspective the aforesaid factual position, we proceed to decide the issue of assessee’s entitlement under

THR INFRASTRUCTURE PTE LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIR.-3(1)(1), INTL TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

grossly erred on facts and in law by alleging that the Appellant lacks economic substance in Singapore as per the Limitation of Benefit (LOB) clause in India-Singapore DTAA and denying the DTAA benefit without appreciating that the Appellant fulfills all conditions of LOB clause as prescribed under the DTAA ... immediately preceding period of 12 months from the date on which the gains arise." 16. It was argued that Limitation of Benefit Clause (LOB Clause) has been inserted and accordingly, the DTAA was amended vide the Protocol which was made effective from 01.04.2017, meaning thereby that amended Article is applicable

REVERSE AGE HEALTH SERVICES PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Reverse Age Health Dcit Services Pte Ltd. Vs Circle – 3 (1) (1) 31, Tanglin Road, 03-04, St. International Taxation Regis Residences, New Delhi Singapore- 247912 Pan No.Aaicr9878A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Deepak Chopra, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2023

appeal under consideration read as under :- “73. In the objections dated 28th December, 2021, the petitioner has furnished the details of compliance with the LOB clause to the India- Singapore DTAA. The Assessing officer has not questioned the satisfaction of the LOB clause or the Independent Chartered Accountant certificate ... stage except in the present proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner is a bonafide entity and not a shell/conduit entity as it complies with the LOB clause to the India-Singapore DTAA as the expenditure has been incurred in Singapore and the same has been certified by an independent chartered accountant