Treaty tie-breaker residency rules determine salary, rental income, dividend treatment, and interest taxation under multiple DTAAs.

The note explains how the India-Kazakhstan DTAA tie-breaker rule can treat an individual as resident of Kazakhstan for an overlapping period when closer personal and economic relations are there, even if domestic law residency continues for the full previous year. On that basis, salary from employment exercised in Kazakhstan was treated as not taxable in India. Rental income from immovable property in London was governed by the India-UK DTAA and was not taxable in India on that basis. Dividend income needed fresh examination under the India-Netherlands DTAA, while interest income from India was protected by the India-Kazakhstan DTAA and taxable only at the treaty rate.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee, though resident under domestic law, was to be treated as resident of Kazakhstan for the overlapping period under the tie-breaker rule in the India-Kazakhstan DTAA; (ii) whether salary earned during the overlapping period was taxable in India; (iii) whether rental income from immovable property situated in London was taxable in India; (iv) whether dividend income required fresh adjudication under the applicable treaty and whether interest income from India was taxable only at the treaty rate.

Issue: whether the assessee, though resident under domestic law, was to be treated as resident of Kazakhstan for the overlapping period under the tie-breaker rule in the India-Kazakhstan DTAA.

Analysis: Domestic law does not provide for split residency for a previous year, and residential status under the Income-tax Act applies for the full previous year. For treaty purposes, however, the tie-breaker rule in Article 4(2) of the India-Kazakhstan DTAA applies where an individual is resident in both States under their domestic laws. On the facts, the assessee had closer personal and economic relations with Kazakhstan during the relevant period, with residence and payroll shifted there.

Conclusion: The assessee was to be regarded as a resident of Kazakhstan for the overlapping period for treaty purposes.

Issue: whether salary earned during the overlapping period was taxable in India.

Analysis: Under Article 15(1) of the India-Kazakhstan DTAA, salary derived by a resident of one Contracting State in respect of employment is taxable only in that State unless the employment is exercised in the other State. Since the assessee was treated as a resident of Kazakhstan and the employment was exercised there, the treaty allocation favored Kazakhstan for the salary income.

Conclusion: The salary income for the overlapping period was not taxable in India.

Issue: whether rental income from immovable property situated in London was taxable in India.

Analysis: Income from immovable property is governed by the treaty for the State where the property is situated. The relevant treaty for the London property was the India-United Kingdom DTAA, under which income from immovable property may be taxed in the State in which the property is situated. The income could not be brought to tax in India on that basis.

Conclusion: The rental income from the London property was not taxable in India.

Issue: whether dividend income required fresh adjudication under the applicable treaty and whether interest income from India was taxable only at the treaty rate.

Analysis: The dividend income arose from shares held in the Netherlands, and the record was insufficient to finally determine the correct treaty treatment under the India-Netherlands DTAA. The matter therefore required de novo consideration by the Assessing Officer. As regards interest, the assessee was entitled to treaty protection under Article 11 of the India-Kazakhstan DTAA, under which interest income from India was taxable at the beneficial treaty rate.

Conclusion: The dividend-income issue was remanded for fresh adjudication, and the interest income was directed to be taxed at 10% under the treaty.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in substantial part, with relief granted on residence, salary, rental income, and interest, while the dividend issue was sent back for fresh consideration.

---