Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

April 2026

Articles 13 and 24(4A) of India-Singapore DTAA – Entities interposed to take benefit under DTAA were not entitled to qualify for benefit under capital gains article. Accordingly, the gains arising from alienation of shares acquired before 01 April 2017 were taxable in India.

By Geeta Jani | Dhishat B Mehta | K. Prasanna, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 4 mins

[2026] 183 taxmann.com 125 (Delhi - Trib.)

Hareon Solar Singapore (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (International Taxation)

IT APPEAL NOS. 2226 (DELHI) OF 2024

A.Y.: 2020-21

Dated: 30 January 2026

Articles 13 and 24(4A) of India-Singapore DTAA – Entities interposed to take benefit under DTAA were not entitled to qualify for benefit under capital gains article. Accordingly, the gains arising from alienation of shares acquired before 01 April 2017 were taxable in India.

FACTS

The Assessee, a tax resident of Singapore, was incorporated in 2015. The Assessee was a subsidiary of Hareon Hong Kong, which, in turn, was owned by Hareon China. The Singapore tax authorities had granted a tax residency certificate ("TRC") to the Assessee. The Assessee was incorporated pursuant to a joint venture ("JV") between Hareon China and third-party entities from India. As part of the JV commitment, investment in Indian Company was made through Hareon Singapore. The Assessee made investments in the form of equity and compulsorily convertible debentures ("CCD") into an Indian Company.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Articles 13 and 24(4A) of India-Singapore DTAA – On facts, in absence of any primary motive of tax avoidance, gains from alienation of shares acquired before 01 April 2017 were taxable only in Singapore

Assessment — Validity of assessment order — Revised return filed within time — Revised return filed during pendency of scrutiny proceedings based on an audit objection — Assessment order passed based on the original return — CIT (Appeals) annulled the assessment order — Tribunal, proceeding on the erroneous basis that revised return was filed beyond period of limitation, set aside order of CIT (Appeals) and restored matter to the AO — High Court held that where revised return filed is validly filed, the assessment order cannot be passed on basis of the original return — Once a revised return is filed, original return stands obliterated — Assessment order set aside, order of CIT (Appeals) modified, and matter remitted to the AO — AO directed to determine taxable income on the basis of revised return.