<?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>2018 (2) TMI 855 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355434</link>
    <description>A Mauritius resident company with a valid tax residency certificate and commercial investment substance was held entitled to India-Mauritius treaty benefits, so capital gains on transfer of shares were not taxable in India under Article 13. Because the income was not chargeable to tax in India under the treaty, no withholding obligation arose under section 195. The transaction, however, remained an international transaction between associated enterprises, so the transfer pricing provisions in sections 92 to 92F applied and had to be benchmarked at arm&#039;s length. The parties also accepted that section 115JB did not apply to the foreign company in this context.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508921" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 855 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355434</link>
      <description>A Mauritius resident company with a valid tax residency certificate and commercial investment substance was held entitled to India-Mauritius treaty benefits, so capital gains on transfer of shares were not taxable in India under Article 13. Because the income was not chargeable to tax in India under the treaty, no withholding obligation arose under section 195. The transaction, however, remained an international transaction between associated enterprises, so the transfer pricing provisions in sections 92 to 92F applied and had to be benchmarked at arm&#039;s length. The parties also accepted that section 115JB did not apply to the foreign company in this context.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>