Treaty benefit denied for lack of beneficial ownership; gains taxed in India, with withholding and transfer pricing consequences.

Treaty relief under the India-Mauritius tax convention was denied where the investor was found to be only a name lender and not the real beneficial owner of the shares; the capital gains were therefore treated as taxable in India. Once taxability in India was affirmed, withholding under section 195 followed, and the transfer pricing provisions were held applicable to benchmark the international transaction at arm's length. Section 115JB was held inapplicable to the foreign company in the stated framework, in line with the retrospective amendment and CBDT clarification excluding foreign companies from that provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to the benefits of the India-Mauritius tax treaty and whether the gains on transfer of shares in the Indian company were not taxable in India; (ii) whether, on the finding that the gains were taxable in India, tax was required to be withheld under section 195 and whether the transfer pricing provisions applied to the transaction; (iii) whether section 115JB applied to the income from the proposed transaction.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to the benefits of the India-Mauritius tax treaty and whether the gains on transfer of shares in the Indian company were not taxable in India.

Analysis: The applicant was found not to have acted as an independent investor in the acquisition of the shares in the Indian company. The investment decision, the execution of the share purchase agreement, the consideration structure, and the subsequent accounting treatment were held to show that the applicant had only lent its name and was not the real beneficial owner of the shares. On that footing, the applicant could not invoke the India-Mauritius tax treaty for exemption from capital gains tax. The gain was treated as arising in the hands of the US group entities that had actually funded and effected the acquisition, and the treaty benefit claimed by the Mauritius company was rejected.

Conclusion: The applicant was held not entitled to the benefits of the India-Mauritius tax treaty and the capital gains were held taxable in India.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the finding that the gains were taxable in India, tax was required to be withheld under section 195 and whether the transfer pricing provisions applied to the transaction.

Analysis: Once the gains were held taxable in India, the payer's withholding obligation under section 195 followed. The Authority also held that the applicability of transfer pricing under Chapter X does not depend on actual chargeability in the same manner as section 195, and that an international transaction between associated enterprises must be benchmarked at arm's-length price.

Conclusion: Tax was held deductible under section 195 and the transfer pricing provisions were held applicable.

Issue (iii): Whether section 115JB applied to the income from the proposed transaction.

Analysis: The parties were in agreement that the retrospective amendment and the CBDT clarification excluded foreign companies from the scope of section 115JB in the relevant context.

Conclusion: Section 115JB was held not applicable.

Final Conclusion: The ruling denied treaty exemption and upheld taxability in India with consequential withholding and transfer pricing consequences, while excluding applicability of the minimum alternate tax provision to the foreign company.

Ratio Decidendi: Treaty benefits are unavailable where the claimant is found, on the facts, to be only a name lender and not the beneficial owner of the investment; once the income is held taxable in India, withholding and arm's-length benchmarking consequences follow, but section 115JB does not apply to foreign companies in the stated framework.

---