Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Hareon Solar Singapore Private ... vs Dcit Int. Taxation Circle2(1)(1), New ... on 30 January, 2026 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2226/Del/2024 Assessment Year : 202021 Hareon Solar Singapore Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT, 38, Beach Road, International Taxation Circle2(1)(1), #2911 South Beach Tower, C R Building, I P Estate, Singapore New Delhi110002 PAN: AAECH4843B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ritesh Bajaj, Advocate & Ms. Mamta Verma, CA Revenue by : Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 05.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, AM: This appeal in ITA No.2226/Del/2024 for assessment year 202021 has been filed by the assessee challenging the assessment order(DIN & Order No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/202324/1062232534(1)), dated 08th March, 2024 passed by the learned Assessing Officer(hereinafter called "the AO") u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') assessing income of the assessee at Rs.18,58,19,482/ as against the ITA No.2226/Del/2024 returned income of Rs.90,95,180/ , which assessment order was issued by the AO in pursuance of the directions of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the 1961 Act, dated 26th February, 2024(DIN ITBA/DRP/M/ 144C(5)/202324/1061503015(1)). The draft assessment order in the case of the assessee was passed by the AO u/s 144C(1) , dated 17.05.2023(DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/F/144C/202324/1052904151(1)). The assessee filed objections with learned DRP against the draft assessment order dated 17.05.2023 which were disposed off by ld. DRP vide orders dated 26.02.2024. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in memo of appeal filed with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi(hereinafter called "the Tribunal") reads as under: "The grounds mentioned herein by the Appellant are without prejudice to each other. 1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order ('order') passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(1)(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi ('the Ld. AO') and directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel 1, New Delhi ('the Ld. Panel') are erroneous on facts and are bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and the Ld. Panel has erred on the taxability of capital gains arising in the hands of Appellant on the transfer of securities which is governed by the provisions of the Incometax Act, 1961 ("the Act") read with provisions of the IndiaSingapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA"). 2.1 The Ld. AO and Ld. Panel has grossly erred to indicate that the Appellant is merely a shell company or sham arrangement without adequate substance with the beneficial ownership and control and management effectively lying outside Singapore. 2 ITA No.2226/Del/2024 2.2 The Ld. Panel has erred in not considering the TRC certificate which is evidencing that the Appellant is a tax resident of Singapore and eligible to claim tax treaty benefits between India and Singapore. 2.3 The Ld. AO and Ld. Panel has erred in not appreciating the organisational structure of the company. 2.4 The Ld. Panel has grossly erred in rejecting the benefits of DTAA including clause of Limitation of Benefits (LOB clause). 2.5 The Ld. AO and Ld. Panel has erred that control and management is lying in Singapore. 2.6 The Ld. AO and Ld. Panel has erred that there is no substance in Singapore. 2.7 The Ld. Panel has erred in not considering the assessee submission while passing the order. 2.8 The Ld. AO failed to apply the recent judicial pronouncements of Delhi High Court in the case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) Vi Fdi Three Pte. Ltd. [2023] 146 taxmann.com 569 (Delhi) in the case of the Appellant owing to similar facts. 3. The Ld. AO has erred in computing the tax liability. 4. The Ld. AO has erred in law by initiating pe