https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221184 ShanH was found to be a genuine corporate entity with commercial substance and the legal and beneficial owner of the SBL shares, so corporate veil lifting was unwarranted. The 10-07-2009 SPA was treated as a sale of ShanH shares only, not an indirect transfer of SBL shares, control or underlying assets. Article 14(5) of the DTAA was held to govern the capital gains, with no look-through reading and no override by the Finance Act, 2012 amendments, so the gain was not chargeable to tax in India and was taxable only in France. The AAR ruling, the Section 201 default order, the demand notice and the rectification order were all set aside. en-us Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Mar 2021 15:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221184 ShanH was found to be a genuine corporate entity with commercial substance and the legal and beneficial owner of the SBL shares, so corporate veil lifting was unwarranted. The 10-07-2009 SPA was treated as a sale of ShanH shares only, not an indirect transfer of SBL shares, control or underlying assets. Article 14(5) of the DTAA was held to govern the capital gains, with no look-through reading and no override by the Finance Act, 2012 amendments, so the gain was not chargeable to tax in India and was taxable only in France. The AAR ruling, the Section 201 default order, the demand notice and the rectification order were all set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221184