Research and Articles
![](/Content/images/arrow-3-right-red.png)
Hotline
![](/Content/images/arrow-3-right-red.png)
- Capital Markets Hotline
- Companies Act Series
- Climate Change Related Legal Issues
- Competition Law Hotline
- Corpsec Hotline
- Court Corner
- Cross Examination
- Deal Destination
- Debt Funding in India Series
- Deal Talk
- Dispute Resolution Hotline
- Education Sector Hotline
- FEMA Hotline
- Financial Service Update
- Food & Beverages Hotline
- Funds Hotline
- Gaming Law Wrap
- GIFT City Express
- Green Hotline
- HR Law Hotline
- iCe Hotline
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Hotline
- International Trade Hotlines
- Investment Funds: Monthly Digest
- IP Hotline
- IP Lab
- Legal Update
- Lit Corner
- M&A Disputes Series
- M&A Hotline
- M&A Interactive
- Media Hotline
- New Publication
- Other Hotline
- Pharma & Healthcare Update
- Press Release
- Private Client Wrap
- Private Debt Hotline
- Private Equity Corner
- Real Estate Update
- Realty Check
- Regulatory Digest
- Regulatory Hotline
- Renewable Corner
- SEZ Hotline
- Social Sector Hotline
- Tax Hotline
- Technology & Tax Series
- Technology Law Analysis
- Telecom Hotline
- The Startups Series
- White Collar and Investigations Practice
- Yes, Governance Matters.
- Japan Desk ジャパンデスク
Tax Hotline
October 1, 2002Government of India files SLP against Delhi High Court Order
After much speculation over when the Government of India (“GOI”) would appeal against the Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”) order dated May 31, 2002; the GOI has finally gone ahead and filed the Special Leave Petition (“SLP”) before the Apex Court of India. The SLP has been filed jointly by the GOI and Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”), both being the respondents in the Delhi HC writ petitions.
The Delhi HC, in the aforementioned ruling had quashed Circular 789, dated April 13, 2000 which clarified that Certificate of Residence issued by Mauritius tax authorities would constitute sufficient proof of residence as well as beneficial ownership of a Mauritius entity. The Delhi HC ruled that the Circular was bad in law and also obiter stated that the Indian Income Tax Authorities (“IT Authorities”) could re-open assessments of Mauritius based Foreign Institutional Investors (“FIIs”) as may be open to them under the Indian Income Tax law.
If the SLP is admitted and the application for stay of the Delhi HC order is accepted, then the Delhi HC order would be put on stay and consequently IT Authorities would be prevented from re-opening any assessments until the final adjudication of the SLP by the Supreme Court of India. However, if the SLP is rejected, then the Delhi HC order would become final.
Source: The Economic Times, October 1, 2002