← All Phrases

“GAAR”

GAARSection 95Section 9554 judgments

Judgments citing GAAR

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)

outside the purview of Article 27A. 8. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, Learned Counsel submitted, after codification of General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR) under Chapter XA of the Act. The choice of the tax payer to seek treaty benefit, in case it is more beneficial, has been limited ... introduction of sub section (2A) to Section 90 of the Act, which overrides sub Section (2) of Section 90 by providing that GAAR shall apply even if such provision is not beneficial to tax payer. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench

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

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)

outside the purview of Article 27A. 8. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, Learned Counsel submitted, after codification of General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR) under Chapter XA of the Act. The choice of the tax payer to seek treaty benefit, in case it is more beneficial, has been limited ... introduction of sub section (2A) to Section 90 of the Act, which overrides sub Section (2) of Section 90 by providing that GAAR shall apply even if such provision is not beneficial to tax payer. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

equity and that such a proposal was only part of Direct Taxes Code Bill of 2010 as a part of General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR) and that in the absence of any such statutory provision the stand of the Revenue could not be upheld. The aforesaid reasoning has been approved

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2485/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

equity and that such a proposal was only part of Direct Taxes Code Bill of 2010 as a part of General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR) and that in the absence of any such statutory provision the stand of the Revenue could not be upheld. The aforesaid reasoning has been approved

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

ITA 1867/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 143Section 90

DTAA to supersede the provisions of the income tax Act in case their application is more beneficial. 14. There is no dispute that GAAR is applicable to the assessment year under consideration which empowered the revenue to declare the subject transaction to be an impressible arrangement. In our considered opinion ... means or in a manner which is not ordinarily employed for bona fide purposes.” 15. However, as per section 101 of the ITA, domestic GAAR cannot be pressed into operation for denial of a tax benefit, where the case of an assessee falls within one of the conditions prescribed under

M/S. Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 199/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

discussion of thin capitalization, i.e. art. 26 BITC; art. 54 BITC; art. 198, 11° BITC, art. 18, 4° BITC and the Belgian GAAR. Articles 26, 54 and 198 belong to the first group of aforementioned rules. The deduction of interest is denied if the statutory conditions for deductibility ... purposes, while curiously it does not recharacterize debt into equity (neither for corporate tax, nor for capital duty purposes). In certain circumstances, the Belgian GAAR may have the potential to recharacterize purported debt into equity. In that case, it also belongs to the second set of rules

M/S Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3336/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

discussion of thin capitalization, i.e. art. 26 BITC; art. 54 BITC; art. 198, 11° BITC, art. 18, 4° BITC and the Belgian GAAR. Articles 26, 54 and 198 belong to the first group of aforementioned rules. The deduction of interest is denied if the statutory conditions for deductibility ... purposes, while curiously it does not recharacterize debt into equity (neither for corporate tax, nor for capital duty purposes). In certain circumstances, the Belgian GAAR may have the potential to recharacterize purported debt into equity. In that case, it also belongs to the second set of rules

M/S United Breweries Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 481/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT –DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

show that the copy of the Scheme was the same as was filed with the High Court. The CIT(A) invoked the principle of GAAR to this transaction without specifying whether and how GARR was applicable to the transaction. The CIT(A) has observed that the Hon’ble High Court ... implications in the Scheme, whereas there was no tax implication at all, to the transaction. vii) The CIT(A) invoked the principle of GAAR without even specifying whether and how GARR was applicable to the transaction whereas the principles of GAAR are not applicable to the transaction. viii

Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 520/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 253Section 92CSection 92D

discussion of thin capitalization, i.e. art. 26 BITC; art. 54 BITC; art. 198, 11° BITC, art. 18, 4° BITC and the Belgian GAAR. Articles 26, 54 and 198 belong to the first group of aforementioned rules. The deduction of interest is denied if the statutory conditions for deductibility ... purposes, while curiously it does not recharacterize debt into equity (neither for corporate tax, nor for capital duty purposes). In certain circumstances, the Belgian GAAR may have the potential to recharacterize purported debt into equity. In that case, it also belongs to the second set of rules

Asstt. CIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in terms of aforesaid findings

ITA 111/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalasst. Commissioner Of Income Tax-32(1), Room No. 702, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ...... Appellant Vs. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel, 1903, Siddhivinayak Tower Chs Ltd. Link Road, Sudhendra Nagar, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400068. Pan: Afhpp0267N ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Jigaar Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.08.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Audited Books Of Accounts & Reducing The Turnover To Rs. 9,50,35,865/- Against Turnover Of Rs. 12,05,07,568/- As Disclosed In The Audited Books Of Accounts.” 2. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Eliminating He Profits To 8% Of The Reduced Turnover Against Addition Of Rs. 8,49,87,993/- Made By The Ao.”

For Appellant: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Jigaar Mehta, AR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Blackstone Fp Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd., Mauritius vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Circle-1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 981/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 154

scheme of Article 13 is unsustainable in law. While on the issue, we may add that although in the context of the application of GAAR in the context of treaty abuse in the context of materially similar Article 13 in Canada Luxembourg Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, the Hon‟ble Supreme

Blackstone Fp Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd., Mauritius vs. DCIT Intl Tax Cir.1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1725/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 154

scheme of Article 13 is unsustainable in law. While on the issue, we may add that although in the context of the application of GAAR in the context of treaty abuse in the context of materially similar Article 13 in Canada Luxembourg Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, the Hon‟ble Supreme

Roxtec India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3840/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar, CIT/DR
Section 144CSection 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

M/S Bergen Engines India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5543/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Bergen Engines India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit 2Nd Floor, 52-B, Okhla Circle-4(2) Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-3, Okhla New Delhi Aaecb7223M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 92C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER