https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215939 Treaty benefits under the India-Mauritius convention were upheld because the applicant was a Mauritius resident and mere routing of investment through Mauritius was insufficient, by itself, to deny treaty protection absent a finding of sham or tax-avoidance device; the capital gains from the proposed share buyback were therefore taxable only in Mauritius under paragraph 4 of Article 13. The claimed exemption under section 47(iv) was denied because the provision was construed strictly according to its plain language and was not extended beyond its express terms. The transfer pricing provisions in sections 92 to 92F applied because the transaction was an international transaction between related parties giving rise to income. en-us Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215939 Treaty benefits under the India-Mauritius convention were upheld because the applicant was a Mauritius resident and mere routing of investment through Mauritius was insufficient, by itself, to deny treaty protection absent a finding of sham or tax-avoidance device; the capital gains from the proposed share buyback were therefore taxable only in Mauritius under paragraph 4 of Article 13. The claimed exemption under section 47(iv) was denied because the provision was construed strictly according to its plain language and was not extended beyond its express terms. The transfer pricing provisions in sections 92 to 92F applied because the transaction was an international transaction between related parties giving rise to income. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215939