Capital loss and treaty residence relief apply where hedging contracts and securities gains are tied to capital treatment.

Loss on cancellation of forward foreign exchange contracts used to hedge capital investment exposure was treated as capital loss, because the contracts had already been characterised as capital in nature in earlier years and the cancellation loss followed the same character. Capital gain from sale of Indian securities by a Singapore tax resident with no permanent establishment in India was held taxable only in Singapore under Article 13(4) of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty. Article 24 did not import a remittance condition where Article 13(4) itself allocated exclusive taxing rights to the residence State, so repatriation of funds was not required for treaty protection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether loss arising from cancellation of forward foreign exchange contracts was assessable as capital loss or as income from other sources. (ii) Whether capital gain arising from sale of Indian securities was taxable in India in view of Article 13(4) of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty and the effect of Article 24.

Issue (i): Whether loss arising from cancellation of forward foreign exchange contracts was assessable as capital loss or as income from other sources.

Analysis: The contracts were entered into by the assessee to hedge foreign exchange exposure connected with capital investments in India. The dispute had already been decided in earlier assessment years in favour of treating the gain from such contracts as arising on capital account. Once the gain was held to be capital in nature, the corresponding loss on cancellation of the same contracts necessarily followed the same character.

Conclusion: The loss was to be treated as capital loss and not as income from other sources.

Issue (ii): Whether capital gain arising from sale of Indian securities was taxable in India in view of Article 13(4) of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty and the effect of Article 24.

Analysis: The assessee was a tax resident of Singapore and had no permanent establishment in India. Article 13(4) of the treaty provided that gains from any other property were taxable only in the State of residence. The expression in Article 24 concerning exemption or reduced taxation did not apply where Article 13(4) itself assigned exclusive taxing rights to the residence State. The remittance or repatriation of funds to Singapore was therefore not a condition for treaty protection, and the Singapore tax treatment supported taxation of the worldwide income in Singapore.

Conclusion: The capital gain was taxable only in Singapore and was not taxable in India.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to both additions failed, and the directions of the DRP were sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax treaty provision assigns exclusive taxing rights over a category of capital gains to the residence State, a separate remittance-based limitation cannot be imported unless the treaty expressly makes exemption conditional on receipt or repatriation.

---