Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)
Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member, Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member
Sandstone Investment Partners I – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- (IT) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against cit's revision order u/s 263. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. assessee's mauritius residency, no pe, ltcg exempt. (Para 3 , 9) |
| 3. treaty shopping defense vs conduit allegations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. issues: ao inquiry adequacy and ltcg taxability. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. section 10(38) and explanation 4 to 115jb exempt ltcg. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. rejects treaty shopping, conduit findings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. twin conditions u/s 263 not satisfied; appeal allowed. (Para 16 , 17) |
आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax-(IT), Delhi-3 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT’) dated 24.03.2022 passed u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for AY 2017-18.
2. The assessee has assailed the order of CIT by raising following grounds in appeal:-
“1. The impugned order dated 24.03.2022 u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) - 3, Delhi ("the Ld. CIT) is bad in law and Void ab Initio, being without any jurisdiction.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT grossly erred in holdin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
