Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1501 to 1520 of 96363 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 4819 
Join Channel 
