Treaty residence and tax avoidance test shaped the ruling on Mauritius investment gains and advance ruling eligibility.

Corporate residence for treaty purposes was determined by liability to tax in both States and, for a dual resident company, by the place of effective management; on the facts, the Mauritius companies were treated as residents of Mauritius because board and general meetings were held there and no management place existed in India. Capital gains on alienation of the Indian bank shares therefore fell within article 13(4) and were taxable only in Mauritius, while the dividend rate issue under article 10 was not finally decided. The advance ruling applications were nonetheless barred because the investment structure, timing and routing through Mauritius companies gave rise to a prima facie inference of tax avoidance under the proviso to section 245R(2)(c), so the applications could not be entertained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant companies were residents of Mauritius for the purposes of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and whether dividends and capital gains from the Indian bank shares would fall under the treaty articles invoked; (ii) Whether the advance ruling applications were liable to be rejected under clause (c) of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as relating to a transaction designed, prima facie, for avoidance of tax.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant companies were residents of Mauritius for the purposes of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and whether dividends and capital gains from the Indian bank shares would fall under the treaty articles invoked.

Analysis: Liability to tax in India as well as Mauritius was held sufficient to attract paragraph 1 of article 4 of the treaty, and a corporate person resident in both States had then to be assigned residence under paragraph 3 by reference to the place of effective management. On the facts, the companies had their board and general meetings in Mauritius and no place of management in India. Article 13, paragraph 4 was applicable to capital gains on alienation of the shares, making such gains taxable only in Mauritius. Under article 10, the concessional five per cent rate depended also on beneficial ownership, and the materials suggested that the British bank, being the sole shareholder and source of funds, could be the real owner; however, the Authority found it unnecessary to finally rule on that point.

Conclusion: The applicants were to be treated as residents of Mauritius for treaty purposes, and capital gains would, on that footing, fall within article 13(4); the dividend rate issue under article 10 was left without a final ruling.

Issue (ii): Whether the advance ruling applications were liable to be rejected under clause (c) of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as relating to a transaction designed, prima facie, for avoidance of tax.

Analysis: The investment structure was examined against the background of the tax consequences that would have followed had the British bank invested directly. The sequence of incorporation of the Mauritius companies, the routing of the investment through them, and the timing of the treaty changes pointed prima facie to a structure adopted to secure a more favourable Indian tax outcome, particularly the capital gains exemption under the Mauritius treaty. For the purposes of section 245R(2)(c), the relevant inquiry was the apparent design of the transaction to which the question related, and the Authority found that the prima facie inference of tax avoidance was established.

Conclusion: The applications were hit by clause (c) of the proviso to section 245R(2) and could not be entertained.

Final Conclusion: Although treaty residence in Mauritius was accepted on the merits, the advance ruling jurisdiction was declined because the applications were considered to concern a transaction prima facie structured for tax avoidance.

Ratio Decidendi: For treaty purposes, corporate residence under article 4 is determined by liability to tax coupled with the place of effective management, and an advance ruling application must be rejected under section 245R(2)(c) where the transaction to which it relates is prima facie designed for tax avoidance.

---