Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Assessee's project-completion revenue recognition upheld; income addition deleted under Guidance Note/AS-9 and percentage-completion rules as complian...
The ITAT allowed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that the taxpayer, a Singapore resident portfolio company wholly owned by a sovereign investment vehicle, possessed sufficient economic substance, independent management and operational control in Singapore and therefore did not qualify as a conduit or shell. The Tribunal found the pre-1/4/2017 share acquisition qualified for taxation solely in Singapore under Article 13(4)/(4A) of the India-Singapore DTAA and that the subsequent sale to an unrelated foreign purchaser was a genuine commercial realization. Applying Article 24A(1)-(2) (PPT), the Tribunal concluded that obtaining a treaty benefit was not one of the principal purposes and accordingly upheld the treaty exemption of the capital gain.
The ITAT allowed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that the taxpayer, a Singapore resident portfolio company wholly owned by a sovereign investment vehicle, possessed sufficient economic substance, independent management and operational control in Singapore and therefore did not qualify as a conduit or shell. The Tribunal found the pre-1/4/2017 share acquisition qualified for taxation solely in Singapore under Article 13(4)/(4A) of the India-Singapore DTAA and that the subsequent sale to an unrelated foreign purchaser was a genuine commercial realization. Applying Article 24A(1)-(2) (PPT), the Tribunal concluded that obtaining a treaty benefit was not one of the principal purposes and accordingly upheld the treaty exemption of the capital gain.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
