Treaty relief on capital gains accepted, but transfer pricing, return filing, and MAT provisions still applied.

Shares held as long-term investment were treated as capital assets under section 2(14), so the proposed transfer would generate capital gains; however, by virtue of section 90(2) and Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius treaty, those gains were held taxable in Mauritius and not in India, and objections based on tax avoidance or treaty shopping were rejected. Transfer pricing provisions under sections 92 to 92F were held to apply to the international transaction, no withholding obligation arose under section 195 because the sum was not chargeable in India on the stated facts, a return had to be filed under section 139 to claim treaty relief, section 112(1) applied to the gains, and section 115JB applied to the applicant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the shares held by the applicant were capital assets and whether the resulting capital gains on transfer were not taxable in India under the India-Mauritius treaty. (ii) Whether the transfer pricing provisions, withholding tax obligation, return filing requirement, long-term capital gains rate under section 112(1), and section 115JB applied to the applicant.

Issue (i): Whether the shares held by the applicant were capital assets and whether the resulting capital gains on transfer were not taxable in India under the India-Mauritius treaty.

Analysis: The shares were held for investment over several years and were reflected as non-current assets, not stock-in-trade. On that basis, the shares were treated as capital assets within the meaning of section 2(14). The proposed transfer would therefore give rise to capital gains under the Act. However, in view of section 90(2) and Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Convention, the gains were held to be taxable in Mauritius and not in India. The objections based on alleged tax avoidance, treaty shopping, and absence of actual taxation in Mauritius were rejected.

Conclusion: The shares were capital assets, and the capital gains from their transfer were held not taxable in India.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer pricing provisions, withholding tax obligation, return filing requirement, long-term capital gains rate under section 112(1), and section 115JB applied to the applicant.

Analysis: The transfer pricing provisions were held to apply to an international transaction notwithstanding that the gains escaped taxation in India by reason of the treaty. The withholding obligation under section 195 was held not to arise because there was no chargeability under the Act in the circumstances. The applicant was nevertheless held bound to file a return under section 139 because treaty relief must be claimed through the return process. Section 112(1) was held applicable where capital gains arise. Section 115JB was held to apply to foreign companies as well as domestic companies, and therefore to the applicant.

Conclusion: Section 92 to section 92F applied, there was no withholding obligation under section 195, a return of income had to be filed under section 139, section 112(1) applied, and section 115JB applied to the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The ruling accepted the applicant's claim on treaty protection from Indian capital gains tax, but upheld the applicability of transfer pricing, return filing, capital gains rate, and minimum alternate tax provisions, while rejecting the withholding-tax contention.

Ratio Decidendi: Treaty protection under section 90(2) may exclude Indian taxation of capital gains, but transfer pricing and MAT provisions can still apply according to their own statutory language; withholding tax depends on chargeability under the Act, and treaty relief does not eliminate the obligation to claim such relief through a return of income.

---