<?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>2007 (1) TMI 109 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6605</link>
    <description>The case involved the taxability of capital gains in India under the Income-tax Act and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the Netherlands. The applicant, a non-resident investment company, sought to transfer shares of its Indian subsidiary to another subsidiary in the Netherlands. The court held that as per the DTAA, capital gains from such transactions are taxable only in the alienator&#039;s residence state, i.e., the Netherlands, not in India. Therefore, no taxable capital gains would arise in India, no tax withholding was required under Section 195, no return filing obligation existed under Section 139, and transfer pricing provisions were not applicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 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=45688" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 109 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6605</link>
      <description>The case involved the taxability of capital gains in India under the Income-tax Act and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the Netherlands. The applicant, a non-resident investment company, sought to transfer shares of its Indian subsidiary to another subsidiary in the Netherlands. The court held that as per the DTAA, capital gains from such transactions are taxable only in the alienator&#039;s residence state, i.e., the Netherlands, not in India. Therefore, no taxable capital gains would arise in India, no tax withholding was required under Section 195, no return filing obligation existed under Section 139, and transfer pricing provisions were not applicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>