+W.p.(C) 4830/2021Copal Market Research Limited Now Knownas Moodys Analytics Knowledge Servicesresearch (Mauritius) Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax 2International Taxation & Ors

$~5 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 4830/2021COPAL MARKET RESEARCH LIMITED NOW KNOWNAS MOODYS ANALYTICS KNOWLEDGE SERVICESRESEARCH (MAURITIUS) LIMITED..... Petitioner ..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. withMr. Himanshu Aggarwal & Mr.Udit Naresh, Advs. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & ORS. ..... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Easha& Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMARKAURAV O R D E R%10.01.2024 1.The present writ petition had been preferred assailing the orderdated 09 March 2021 in terms of which the declaration made by thewrit petitioner in terms of Section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad SeVishwas Act, 2020 for availing benefits of settlement was rejected.The record would reflect that when the writ petition was originallyentertained, we had on 19 April 2021 accepted the prayer made onbehalf of the petitioner for being permitted to make the deposit of taxwithout prejudice to the rights and contentions of parties. 2.The dispute itself emanates from a transfer of shares and whichwas originally sought to be taxed in terms of Section 9 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. Mr. Vohra, learned senior counselappearing for the writ petitioner however draws our attention to the amendments introduced in Section 9 of the Act by virtue of theTaxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 and which exempts incomeaccruing or arising from the transfer of an asset or transfer of a shareor interest in a company registered or incorporated outside India madebefore the 28[th]day of May 2012. Since in the instant case thetransaction was culminated on 03 November 2011, and thus prior tothe terminal date as introduced in terms of the aforesaid amending act,it is manifest that the amount of tax which had been deposited is nowliable to be refunded to the writ petitioner. The aforesaid position inlaw is also conceded to by the respondents. 3.We consequently direct the respondents to proceed in thisdirection forthwith and ensure that the refund is duly made over to thewrit petitioner. 4.The petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms. YASHWANT VARMA, J. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.JANUARY 10, 2024/kk