Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (8) TMI 1374 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to benefits under the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for capital gains.
2. Applicability of Limitation of Benefit (LOB) clause under Article 27A of the India-Mauritius tax treaty.
3. Validity of Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) and its implications.
4. Application of General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR).

Summary:

Entitlement to Benefits under India-Mauritius DTAA for Capital Gains:
The primary issue is whether the assessee, a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in Mauritius, is entitled to benefits under the India-Mauritius DTAA concerning capital gains derived from the sale of shares. The assessee claimed exemption under Article 13(4) of the DTAA, asserting that the shares were acquired before 01.04.2017, which the Assessing Officer (AO) disputed, arguing that the assessee lacked commercial substance and was a shell/conduit company set up for tax avoidance purposes. The AO's decision was upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which applied the LOB clause under Article 27A.

Applicability of LOB Clause under Article 27A:
The DRP held that the benefit under Article 13(3B) is not available to a shell/conduit company per the LOB clause in Article 27A. However, the Tribunal found that the DRP misconstrued the provisions, as the assessee claimed exemption under Article 13(4), not Article 13(3B). The Tribunal clarified that Article 27A applies to Article 13(3B) and not to Article 13(4), under which the assessee's claim falls. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Article 13(4) for capital gains from shares acquired before 01.04.2017.

Validity of TRC and Its Implications:
The Tribunal emphasized that holding a valid TRC issued by Mauritius tax authorities is conclusive evidence of the assessee's residential status, as upheld by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and reiterated by the Delhi High Court in Blackstone Capital Partners. The Tribunal noted that the AO's allegations of the assessee being a shell/conduit company were not substantiated with credible evidence, and the AO did not invoke GAAR provisions, which are applicable for the assessment years in dispute.

Application of GAAR:
The Tribunal observed that the AO did not invoke GAAR provisions under Chapter XA, which would have required following specific procedures under Section 144BA read with Rule 10UB. Since the AO did not invoke these provisions, the Tribunal found the AO's reasoning to deny treaty benefits as lacking substance. The Tribunal acknowledged the arguments regarding GAAR but deemed the issue academic due to the AO's non-invocation of GAAR.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, directing the AO to verify if any shares were acquired after 01.04.2017 and sold before 31.03.2019, in which case benefits under Article 13(3B) could be given. The Stay Application for A.Y. 2020-21 was dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 11.08.2023.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates