Case Law Details
Vodafone Mauritius Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Ms Fereshte D. Sethna, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the principal allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, which is a foreign company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius, had sold shares worth Rs.1295 crores, of an Indian company going by the name Bharti Infotel Pvt. Ltd, against which TDS was not deducted.
Ms Sethna also states that the petitioner has, in its possession, a tax residency certificate issued under the laws of Mauritius, and therefore, is entitled to take benefit of the provisions of Article 13 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [in short, “DTAA”] forged between India and Mauritius.
In sum, it is Ms Sethna’s contention that notwithstanding the fact that no return was filed by the petitioner, the concerned assessing officer (AO) had no jurisdiction to trigger the impugned proceedings.
Mr Sunil Agarwal, who appears on behalf of respondent no.1/revenue, contends, based on the unamended provision of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”], that since the return was not filed, the concerned AO was within his jurisdiction to commence proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
