Sec. 90 of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Double taxation relief - The assessee filed appeal against the order of CIT stating that the AO grossly erred by taxing the entire amount of interest income of INR 15,16,43,836 received by the appellant at 40 per cent (plus surcharge and cess) and denying the appellant relief of beneficial rate or interest at 10 per cent under art. 11 of the India-Cyprus DTAA based on an erroneous finding that the appellant is not the beneficial owner of the interest income; the AO erred in concluding that the appellant was not the beneficial owner of INR 15,16,43,836 received as interest income from ADAMAS Builders (P) Ltd. ("ABPL") on compulsorily convertible debentures issued by ABPL to the appellant and has thereby erred in denying the appellant relief under art. 11 of the India-Cyprus DTAA. ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that “ the AO/DRP have failed to prove that (i) the appellant did not have exclusive possession and control over the interest income received, (ii) the appellant was required to seek approval or obtain consent from any entity to invest in ABPL, or to utilize the interest income received at its own discretion, and (iii) the appellant was not free to utilize the interest income received at its sole and absolute discretion, unconstrained by any contractual, legal, or economic arrangements with any other third party. Thus, the transaction between the appellant and ABPL cannot be considered a mere back-to-back transaction lacking economic substance.” Accordingly, ITAT directed the AO to accept the return of income filed by the appellant for the impugned assessment year disclosing a total income of Rs. 15,16,43,840 from interest on CCDs in ABPL, wherein it has offered such interest to tax @ 10 per cent. - GOLDEN BELLA HOLDINGS LTD. V/s DY. CIT - [2020] 206 TTJ 618 (ITAT-MUMBAI)