Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessee company was denied exemption under Article 13(3B) and 13(4) of the India-Mauritius Treaty, and its capital gains from sale of shares, futures, and options were taxed, as its control and management were found to lie outside Mauritius in UAE, with the beneficial owner being a UAE resident. However, the CIT(A) held the assessee eligible for the India-Mauritius treaty benefit. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no conclusive evidence that the assessee's control and management were outside Mauritius or that the beneficial owner was a UAE resident. The assessee had Mauritius-resident directors, held board meetings in Mauritius, had a valid TRC, Category 1 Global Business License, and SEBI registration, proving its Mauritius tax residency. The protocol amending the treaty was not applicable as it had not come into force. The ITAT relied on Supreme Court's Azadi Bachao Andolan case principles and CBDT Circular 789/2000 while interpreting the treaty.
The assessee company was denied exemption under Article 13(3B) and 13(4) of the India-Mauritius Treaty, and its capital gains from sale of shares, futures, and options were taxed, as its control and management were found to lie outside Mauritius in UAE, with the beneficial owner being a UAE resident. However, the CIT(A) held the assessee eligible for the India-Mauritius treaty benefit. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no conclusive evidence that the assessee's control and management were outside Mauritius or that the beneficial owner was a UAE resident. The assessee had Mauritius-resident directors, held board meetings in Mauritius, had a valid TRC, Category 1 Global Business License, and SEBI registration, proving its Mauritius tax residency. The protocol amending the treaty was not applicable as it had not come into force. The ITAT relied on Supreme Court's Azadi Bachao Andolan case principles and CBDT Circular 789/2000 while interpreting the treaty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
