<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1289 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187061</link>
    <description>Capital gains realised by a Mauritius-incorporated company on sale of Indian shares were treated as not taxable in India under the Indo-Mauritius tax treaty, where the company held a valid tax residence certificate. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling upholding CBDT Circular No. 789 and the treaty arrangement, holding that gains of a Mauritius resident from transfer of shares were not chargeable merely because the investments related to Indian securities. The contrary argument based on residence and management, and the earlier Delhi High Court view, could not override the binding Supreme Court position. The tax addition was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2016 17:16:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444098" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1289 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187061</link>
      <description>Capital gains realised by a Mauritius-incorporated company on sale of Indian shares were treated as not taxable in India under the Indo-Mauritius tax treaty, where the company held a valid tax residence certificate. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling upholding CBDT Circular No. 789 and the treaty arrangement, holding that gains of a Mauritius resident from transfer of shares were not chargeable merely because the investments related to Indian securities. The contrary argument based on residence and management, and the earlier Delhi High Court view, could not override the binding Supreme Court position. The tax addition was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187061</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>