<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (3) TMI 107 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75807</link>
    <description>Repeated, high-volume exchange-traded futures and options dealings with a short trading cycle and no delivery of underlying securities were treated as trading activity, so the receipts constituted business income rather than capital gains. Section 115AD did not change that character or exclude business income from exchange-traded derivatives, and the special regime for foreign institutional investors did not alter the tax treatment. As the applicant had no permanent establishment in India and its representative office was not involved in the transactions, those business profits were not taxable in India under the treaty. The AAR declined to rule on the proposed share and securities transactions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 18:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 107 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75807</link>
      <description>Repeated, high-volume exchange-traded futures and options dealings with a short trading cycle and no delivery of underlying securities were treated as trading activity, so the receipts constituted business income rather than capital gains. Section 115AD did not change that character or exclude business income from exchange-traded derivatives, and the special regime for foreign institutional investors did not alter the tax treatment. As the applicant had no permanent establishment in India and its representative office was not involved in the transactions, those business profits were not taxable in India under the treaty. The AAR declined to rule on the proposed share and securities transactions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>