{"id":62924,"date":"2026-07-30T15:54:49","date_gmt":"2026-07-30T10:24:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/world-sport-group-mauritius-ltd-v-dy-cit-it-2025-130-itr-641-mumtrib\/"},"modified":"2026-07-30T15:54:49","modified_gmt":"2026-07-30T10:24:49","slug":"world-sport-group-mauritius-ltd-v-dy-cit-it-2025-130-itr-641-mumtrib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/world-sport-group-mauritius-ltd-v-dy-cit-it-2025-130-itr-641-mumtrib\/","title":{"rendered":"World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2025) 130 ITR 641 (Mum)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee, a Mauritius company, received facilitation fees of \u20b9125 crore from MSM under a Facilitation Services Deed. The very same amount had already been assessed substantively in the hands of its Indian group company (WSGI) in search assessment proceedings. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessee\u2019s assessment under section 147 to tax the same amount in its hands. The\u00a0 Tribunal held that once the Revenue had already assessed the income substantively in the hands of another assessee, it could not reopen the assessment merely on a contingent apprehension that the income may escape tax if the other assessee succeeded in appeal. The reasons recorded disclosed only a belief that the income \u201cmay escape assessment\u201d and not the statutory requirement of a belief that income \u201chas escaped assessment\u201d. Such contingent reopening was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The appeal was allowed. [AY. 2010-11]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 147: Reassessment-Reopening is invalid where the very same income has already been assessed substantively in the hands of another assessee, and the AO records only a contingent belief that the income may escape assessment if the other assessee succeeds in appeal-Contingent reopening was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.  [S. 148]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62924","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gmU","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62924","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62924"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62924\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":62925,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62924\/revisions\/62925"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62924"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62924"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62924"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}