https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184519 Corporate residence for treaty purposes was determined by liability to tax in both States and, for a dual resident company, by the place of effective management; on the facts, the Mauritius companies were treated as residents of Mauritius because board and general meetings were held there and no management place existed in India. Capital gains on alienation of the Indian bank shares therefore fell within article 13(4) and were taxable only in Mauritius, while the dividend rate issue under article 10 was not finally decided. The advance ruling applications were nonetheless barred because the investment structure, timing and routing through Mauritius companies gave rise to a prima facie inference of tax avoidance under the proviso to section 245R(2)(c), so the applications could not be entertained. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jul 2016 18:32:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184519 Corporate residence for treaty purposes was determined by liability to tax in both States and, for a dual resident company, by the place of effective management; on the facts, the Mauritius companies were treated as residents of Mauritius because board and general meetings were held there and no management place existed in India. Capital gains on alienation of the Indian bank shares therefore fell within article 13(4) and were taxable only in Mauritius, while the dividend rate issue under article 10 was not finally decided. The advance ruling applications were nonetheless barred because the investment structure, timing and routing through Mauritius companies gave rise to a prima facie inference of tax avoidance under the proviso to section 245R(2)(c), so the applications could not be entertained. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184519