https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207211 AAR examined whether an advance ruling application was barred under the proviso to section 245R(2) where the arrangement was prima facie designed to avoid Indian income-tax, and held that it could examine the substance of the connected steps and reject the jurisdictional objection. It then treated the sale of shares in a French subsidiary as, in substance, a transfer of the underlying Indian investment and control, and held that the resulting capital gains were taxable in India under Article 14(5) of the India-France DTAA. The alternative under Article 14(6) was not reached. en-us Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207211 AAR examined whether an advance ruling application was barred under the proviso to section 245R(2) where the arrangement was prima facie designed to avoid Indian income-tax, and held that it could examine the substance of the connected steps and reject the jurisdictional objection. It then treated the sale of shares in a French subsidiary as, in substance, a transfer of the underlying Indian investment and control, and held that the resulting capital gains were taxable in India under Article 14(5) of the India-France DTAA. The alternative under Article 14(6) was not reached. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207211