<?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>2005 (12) TMI 51 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6590</link>
    <description>Income from sale of portfolio securities is classified on the facts, including transaction volume, frequency, manner of dealing, and whether the holdings are investment or stock-in-trade. On the stated facts, substantial and continuous trading, without evidence of a dividend-only investment purpose, led to characterization of the profits as business income. A trust claiming treaty relief must be a treaty resident only to the extent its income is subject to tax in the United States; because the applicant enjoyed U.S. exemption and the Indian securities income was not shown to be taxed there, treaty benefits were unavailable. The income was therefore taxable in India under domestic business-connection rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 51 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6590</link>
      <description>Income from sale of portfolio securities is classified on the facts, including transaction volume, frequency, manner of dealing, and whether the holdings are investment or stock-in-trade. On the stated facts, substantial and continuous trading, without evidence of a dividend-only investment purpose, led to characterization of the profits as business income. A trust claiming treaty relief must be a treaty resident only to the extent its income is subject to tax in the United States; because the applicant enjoyed U.S. exemption and the Indian securities income was not shown to be taxed there, treaty benefits were unavailable. The income was therefore taxable in India under domestic business-connection rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>