Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the limitation of relief under Article 24 of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement applied so as to deny the assessee the benefit of Article 13(4) in respect of capital gains on sale of debt instruments.
Analysis: Article 13(4) provides that gains from the alienation of property by a resident of Singapore are taxable only in Singapore. Article 24 is a limitation provision intended to operate where the source-country relief is in the nature of exemption or reduced rate and the other Contracting State taxes the income on a remittance basis. On the facts, the Singapore tax authority certificate stated that the relevant income was treated as Singapore-sourced and taxed in Singapore on accrual basis, without reference to remittance or receipt. The Tribunal followed the coordinate bench decisions and the Gujarat High Court authority relied upon, and held that Article 24 was not attracted merely because the income was not shown to have been remitted to Singapore.
Conclusion: The denial of treaty benefit was unsustainable. The capital gains were not taxable in India under Article 13(4), and Article 24 did not restrict the exemption. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.