Compulsorily convertible debentures held as capital assets generate capital gains, not interest, and corporate veil piercing failed.

Gains from transfer of compulsorily convertible debentures held as capital assets were treated as capital gains, not interest, and treaty protection was not denied on an interest-characterisation basis. The Court held that call and put options, conversion mechanics, and exit terms did not convert a commercial investment into an interest-bearing loan. It also rejected piercing the corporate veil, finding that board participation, quorum rules, affirmative vote items, related-party controls, and audit arrangements showed operational separation and commercial purpose. On the whole transaction, the revenue had not proved a sham, colourable device, or disguised loan.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether gains arising from sale of compulsorily convertible debentures held as capital assets were taxable as interest under the Income-tax Act and the Mauritian tax treaty; (ii) Whether the transaction structure justified lifting the corporate veil and treating the joint venture company and the Indian partner as one entity on the ground of tax avoidance.

Issue (i): Whether gains arising from sale of compulsorily convertible debentures held as capital assets were taxable as interest under the Income-tax Act and the Mauritian tax treaty.

Analysis: A debenture represents debt until discharged, but the character of the gain on transfer depends on the nature of the asset in the holder's hands. Where the instrument is a capital asset, transfer of that asset ordinarily yields capital gains and not interest. The existence of call and put options in the joint venture documents did not convert the investment into a fixed-return loan or alter the legal character of the compulsorily convertible debentures. The conversion mechanics and exit terms showed a commercial investment structure, not an interest-bearing borrowing.

Conclusion: The gains on sale of the compulsorily convertible debentures were not taxable as interest and could not be denied treaty protection on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the transaction structure justified lifting the corporate veil and treating the joint venture company and the Indian partner as one entity on the ground of tax avoidance.

Analysis: The joint venture agreements provided for independent board participation, quorum requirements, affirmative vote items, arm's-length related-party controls, independent audit arrangements, and operational separation. These features showed that the joint venture company was not the alter ego of the Indian partner. Applying the look-at test, the Court found sufficient commercial purpose for routing the investment through equity and compulsorily convertible debentures, and held that premature exit rights and minimum-return clauses did not by themselves establish a sham or colourable device. The burden to prove abuse or tax avoidance was not discharged.

Conclusion: The corporate veil could not be lifted, and the structure could not be treated as a sham transaction or disguised loan.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the advance ruling was set aside, and the petitioner's gains from the investment structure were not to be taxed as interest on the basis found by the Authority for Advance Ruling.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of compulsorily convertible debentures held as capital assets gives rise to capital gains, not interest, and a corporate structure will not be disregarded unless the revenue establishes, on the whole transaction, that it is a sham or a tax-avoidant device warranting piercing of the corporate veil.

---