IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) Vi Fdi Three Pte. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 1(1)(2), Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2562 of 2022 & CM APPL. 7332 of 2022 (for stay)
Decided On : 30-01-2023
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 147, (1), 143(1), (2), 148 to 153, 144C, 66(2), 90(4), 241A - Finance Act, 2013 - Tax residency certificate - Re-assessment - Whether respondent-revenue can go behind tax residency certificate issued by other tax jurisdiction and issue re-assessment notice under Section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to determine issues of residence status, treaty eligibility and legal ownership - Held, Assessee, a non-resident, tried to expand its arguments to include that income earned was not taxable under treaty - Though accepting arguments, Court decided not to intervene in matter - Accordingly, this Court is of view that respondent-revenue cannot go behind TRC issued by other tax jurisdiction as same is sufficient evidence to claim treaty eligibility, residence status, legal ownership and accordingly there is no capital gain earned by petitioner liable to tax in India - Even clarificatory press release issued by Finance Ministry pursuant to 2013 amendment makes it clear that a TRC is to be accepted and tax authorities cannot go behind it - Further, since on basis of repeated assurances by Government of India which have been upheld by Apex Court, petitioner had invested in India, respondent is estopped from arguing to contrary - Court is of view that no income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in present case - In Indu Lata Rangwala (supra), this Court has held that reopening of assessment based on return of income must show 'reasons to believe' that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment – Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
MANMOHAN, J.
ISSUE
1. The core issue that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the respondent-revenue can go behind the tax residency certificate issued by the other tax jurisdiction and issue re-assessment notice under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to determine issues of residence status, treaty eligibility and legal ownership.
FACTS
2. The relevant facts of the present case are that during the Assessment Year 2014-15, the petitioner-Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. acquired equity shares of Agile Electric Sub Assembly Private Limited, a Company incorporated in India (“Agile”) in two tranches, i.e. on 16th August, 2013 and 31st October, 2013.
3. During the year under consideration, i.e. Assessment Year 2016-17, the petitioner sold all the equity shares of Agile to Igarashi Electric Works Limited (“Igarashi”) and other parties on 30th July, 2015.
4. The petitioner electronically filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 on 29th September, 2016. In terms of the said return of income, the petitioner claimed that the gains earned by it on sale of Agile shares were not taxable in India by virtue of Article 13(4) the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement entered into and subsisting between India and Singapore (“India-Singapore DTAA”) based on the Tax Residency Certificate (‘TRC’). In its return of income, the petitioner made all the requisite disclosures with regard to the investment and sale of shares like the petitioner is a non-resident in India and majority of its Directors were residents of Singapore.
5. The petitioner’s return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act with no demand, on 8th October, 2016.
6. On 31st March, 2021 a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner filed a return of income on 28th April, 2021 and vide letter dated 28th April, 2021 requested for the reasons. After eight months the reasons were supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 02nd December, 2021. The ‘Reasons’ are reproduced hereinbelow:-
A.Y. 2016-17 PAN: AAFCB5584L
1. Background:-
The assessee is a company and filed ITR for the AY 2016-17 at nil income. ITR was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, however no scrutiny assessment was made in this case.
Subsequently vide letter F.No. ITO/Intl.Tax (2)(1)(1)/2020-21/88 dated 19.03.2021; following information was received from ITO, TDS, Ward 2(1)(1), lntl. Taxn., New Delhi related to the assessee.
2. Information received from the ITO, TDS, Ward 2(1)(1), Intl. Taxn., New Delhi
In the case of M/s Igarashi Electric Works Ltd., (PAN AABC16394M), verification u/s 133(6) of the act was made w.r.t. foreign remittances made during FY 2015-16. On perusal of the documents furnished by the assessee as well as the information available on ITBA portal, it is revealed that during the year under consideration M/s Igarashi Electric Works Ltd., (PAN AABC16394M) made total foreign remittance of Rs.4,01,31,77,340/-, to M/s Black Stone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three PTE Ltd., stating nature of Payment as consideration paid for acquisition of Shares. Further, the reason for non-deduction of tax was explained that M/s Black Stone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three PTE Ltd., is a resident of Singapore and as such not subject to tax in India on Sale of said shares as per the provisions of India-Singapore DTAA. As per submission of the assessee, M/s Black Stone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three PTE Ltd., has sold the shares of M/s Agile Electric Sub Assembly Pvt Ltd., to M/s Igarashi Electric Works Ltd., for sale consi
Court LE1. Income Tax Officer vs. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 217 ITR 597
Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd V ACIT (2007) 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC)
Special Director and Another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another
Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India and Anr.
Foreign company's LTCG on listed shares with STT exempt u/s 10(38) as s.115JB inapplicable per Explanation 4 if no PE; CIT revision u/s 263 invalid without twin conditions of error and prejudice afte....
Point of Law : Sufficiency of the evidence or material is not open to scrutiny by the Court but the existence of the belief is the sine qua non for a valid exercise of power.
At the time of recording the reason for satisfaction of AO, there should be prima facie some material on the basis of which, the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of th....
Point of law: It is no doubt true that the Court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the Income Tax Officer on the point as to whethe....
Information furnished at the time of original assessment, when by subsequent information received from the Principal Director (Investigation), itself found to be controverted, the objection to the no....
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires fresh tangible material; mere change of opinion is insufficient for valid reassessment.
The court established that a foreign company's reassessment is void if initiated without jurisdiction, especially when the company is dissolved prior to notice issuance, negating assessment validity ....
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act after four years is impermissible without failure to disclose material facts; mere change of opinion does not justify such action.
The Assessing Officer must independently verify information before reopening assessments; reliance on third-party information without application of mind invalidates the reopening process.
The main legal point established is that the Assessing Officer's belief for the reassessment of income under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is based on subjective satisfaction and the existence of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.