<?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>2016 (9) TMI 347 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332086</link>
    <description>A Mauritius resident company was held not chargeable to capital gains tax in India on transfer of shares of an Indian company under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA because its board and core financial decisions were taken in Mauritius, including budgets, statements, dividends, buybacks and share-related decisions. The record also showed maintenance of records, banking operations, statutory filings and shareholder meetings in Mauritius, while the Revenue failed to prove that the company&#039;s important affairs were controlled from India. Applying the settled test of de facto control and management, the AAR found no basis to treat the company&#039;s affairs as wholly situated in India.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2017 17:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 347 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332086</link>
      <description>A Mauritius resident company was held not chargeable to capital gains tax in India on transfer of shares of an Indian company under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA because its board and core financial decisions were taken in Mauritius, including budgets, statements, dividends, buybacks and share-related decisions. The record also showed maintenance of records, banking operations, statutory filings and shareholder meetings in Mauritius, while the Revenue failed to prove that the company&#039;s important affairs were controlled from India. Applying the settled test of de facto control and management, the AAR found no basis to treat the company&#039;s affairs as wholly situated in India.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332086</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>