Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1561 to 1580 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 
