Delhi High Court - Orders
Tiger Global International Iii ... vs The Authority For Advance Rulings ... on 22 September, 2020
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan, Sanjeev Narula
$~1 to 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6764/2020
TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL III HOLDINGS ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arvind Datar and Mr.Porus Kaka,
Sr.Advocates with Mr.Rahul
Unnikrishnan, Mr,Manish Kanth,
Mr.Rajesh Simhan, Ms.Varsha
Bhattacharya and Mr.Ashish Sodhani,
Advocates.
versus
THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME-TAX) &
ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sunil Agarwal, Sr.Standing Counsel
for Revenue Department with Mr.Tushar
Gupta, Advocate.
Mr.Asheesh Jain, Advocate for UOI.
+ W.P.(C) 6765/2020
TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arvind Datar and Mr.Porus Kaka,
Sr.Advocates with Mr.Rahul
Unnikrishnan, Mr,Manish Kanth,
Mr.Rajesh Simhan, Ms.Varsha
Bhattacharya and Mr.Ashish Sodhani,
Advocates.
versus
THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME-TAX) &
ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sunil Agarwal, Sr.Standing Counsel
for Revenue Department with Mr.Tushar
Gupta, Advocate.
Mr.Asheesh Jain, Advocate for UOI.
+ W.P.(C) 6766/2020
TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL IV HOLDINGS ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arvind Datar and Mr.Porus Kaka,
Sr.Advocates with Mr.Rahul
Unnikrishnan, Mr,Manish Kanth,
Mr.Rajesh Simhan, Ms.Varsha
Bhattacharya and Mr.Ashish Sodhani,
Advocates.
versus
THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME-TAX) &
ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sunil Agarwal, Sr.Standing Counsel
for Revenue Department with Mr.Tushar
Gupta, Advocate.
Mr.Asheesh Jain, Advocate for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 22.09.2020 C.M.No.23480/2020 in W.P.(C) No.6764/2020 C.M.No.23482/2020 in W.P.(C) No.6765/2020 C.M.No.23484/2020 in W.P.(C) No.6766/2020 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of. W.P.(C) No.6764/2020 & C.M.No.23479/2020 W.P.(C) No.6765/2020 & C.M.No.23481/2020 W.P.(C) No.6766/2020 & C.M.No.23483/2020 The petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein. The same has been heard by way of video conferencing.
Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order dated 26th March, 2020, whereby the respondent no.1 has held that the entire arrangement made by the petitioners were with an intent to claim benefit under India - Mauritius DTAA and such an arrangement was nothing but for avoidance of tax in India. Respondent no.1 has further held that the bar under Clause (iii) to proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is attracted to the present cases.
Learned senior counsel for petitioners contend that the petitioners have Tax Residency Certificates which are conclusive proof of the fact that they are entitled to benefit of India - Mauritius DTAA/ treaty. They submit that the impugned order is contrary to facts as well as binding judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 SC and Vodafone International Holdings vs. Union of India [2012] 341 ITR 1 as well as CBDT Circular No. 789 of 2000 dated 13th April, 2000. They point out that cases of similarly placed sellers of shares have not been dismissed at the threshold stage under Clause (iii) to proviso Section 245R(2) of the Act.
Issue notice.
Mr.Asheesh Jain, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2- UOI and Mr.Sunil Agarwal, senior standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.3-Revenue Department.
Learned counsel for the respondents submit that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the present writ petitions. They further submit that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners offer no assistance to them. They contend that cases of other sellers of shares of Flipkart are not similar/identical to that of the petitioners.
This Court is of the view that the present writ petitions raise substantial questions of law.
Mr.Sunil Aggarwal prays for ten weeks' time to file the counter-affidavits as he states that there has been bereavement in the family of the concerned respondent no.3.
Accordingly, let counter-affidavits be filed within a period of ten weeks. Rejoinder-affidavits, if any, be filed within three weeks thereafter.
Since the taxes due and payable have already been provisionally withheld and deposited with respondent No.3, this Court directs that till the next date of hearing, regular assessment proceeding initiated by respondent no.3 against the petitioners are stayed.
List on 18th January, 2021 for hearing and disposal. The parties shall also file short written submissions not exceeding three pages each on or before 23rd December, 2020.
The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
MANMOHAN, J SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 KA