https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75806 A Mauritius tax resident legally owning shares in an Indian company was held entitled to Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA, so the capital gains from the share transfer were taxable only in Mauritius and not in India. The AAR accepted the tax residency certificate, supported by CBDT circulars and Azadi Bachao Andolan, as sufficient to establish treaty entitlement. It rejected the Revenue's attempt to disregard the Mauritius company's corporate identity on allegations of beneficial ownership in a US holding company, holding that treaty benefit cannot be denied merely on conjectures of control, motive, or alleged treaty shopping. en-us Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 16:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75806 A Mauritius tax resident legally owning shares in an Indian company was held entitled to Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA, so the capital gains from the share transfer were taxable only in Mauritius and not in India. The AAR accepted the tax residency certificate, supported by CBDT circulars and Azadi Bachao Andolan, as sufficient to establish treaty entitlement. It rejected the Revenue's attempt to disregard the Mauritius company's corporate identity on allegations of beneficial ownership in a US holding company, holding that treaty benefit cannot be denied merely on conjectures of control, motive, or alleged treaty shopping. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75806