Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
On the law applicable in September 2005, the offshore transfer of shares of a Mauritius company by non-resident shareholders was not taxable in India under section 9(1)(i), because the Tribunal applied the look-at test and followed Vodafone International Holdings to hold that an indirect transfer through a foreign company could not be treated as a direct transfer of Indian assets. Since the underlying gain was not chargeable to tax in India at the time of payment, section 195 did not create any withholding obligation, and later retrospective insertions in section 9(1)(i) could not fasten liability on the payer. The deletion of liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was upheld.
On the law applicable in September 2005, the offshore transfer of shares of a Mauritius company by non-resident shareholders was not taxable in India under section 9(1)(i), because the Tribunal applied the look-at test and followed Vodafone International Holdings to hold that an indirect transfer through a foreign company could not be treated as a direct transfer of Indian assets. Since the underlying gain was not chargeable to tax in India at the time of payment, section 195 did not create any withholding obligation, and later retrospective insertions in section 9(1)(i) could not fasten liability on the payer. The deletion of liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.