AAR held that the proceedings under section 197 of the Act were concluded on August 17, 2018, when the certificates were issued by the Officer. The amount subject to tax deduction at source was credited or paid on August 17, 2018, which was prior to the filing of the applications. Even if the certificate under section 197 was modified or varied by the Officer, it could not have been given effect after the transaction was closed on August 17, 2018 and such variation would have no impact. Once the transaction was closed there could be no pending proceeding under section 197 of the Act.  the application under section 197 of the Act had already been decided, before the filing of the applications before the Authority. AAR held that the provisions of the Act do not provide a bar on an applicant approaching this Authority after the matter has been examined in the proceeding under section 195 or under section 197 of the Act. The bar is only in respect of pending proceedings and as there was no pending proceeding on the date of filing of the applications, the applications were not barred. AAR also held that, That the working of the capital gains would involve the correct working of the total sales consideration which in turn depended on the value assigned to each share in the Singapore company. The question raised by the applicants in the application was whether the gains arising from the sale of shares in the Singapore company was chargeable to tax in India under the Act read with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Mauritius. The issue of valuation of shares in the Singapore company or computation of capital gains arising on transfer of the shares was not at all involved in the question raised by the applicants. The exercise of valuation of shares (if at all necessary) and the computation of capital gains would have to be undertaken by the Assessing Officer only when the issue of taxability of capital gains on sale of shares was decided in favour of the Department. No determination of the fair market value of any property (shares) in question was raised in the application. The application was not barred by clause (ii) of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act. AAR held that  the objective of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Mauritius was to allow exemption of capital gains on transfer of shares in Indian companies only and any such exemption on transfer of shares in a company not resident in India, was never intended by the legislator. Accordingly See-through Entities to avail of  benefits of  Double Taxation Avoidance agreement between India and Mauritius and no strategic Foreign Direct investment in India . Arrangement a preordained transaction created for Tax Avoidance purpose hence the application not maintainable. (AY.2019-20)