https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395784 An AAR advance ruling application was rejected as non-maintainable because the transaction was prima facie structured to avoid income-tax and secure treaty benefits not intended by law. The bar under section 245R(2)(i) did not apply since the section 197 withholding proceedings had concluded before the application was filed, and a concluded proceeding could not be treated as pending. The bar under section 245R(2)(ii) also did not apply because the referred question concerned share-sale taxability under the Act and treaty, not a valuation exercise or fair market value determination. However, on the materials as a whole, the arrangement was treated as a pre-ordained Mauritius holding structure aimed at avoiding Indian tax, so section 245R(2)(iii) applied. en-us Thu, 26 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Dec 2020 17:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395784 An AAR advance ruling application was rejected as non-maintainable because the transaction was prima facie structured to avoid income-tax and secure treaty benefits not intended by law. The bar under section 245R(2)(i) did not apply since the section 197 withholding proceedings had concluded before the application was filed, and a concluded proceeding could not be treated as pending. The bar under section 245R(2)(ii) also did not apply because the referred question concerned share-sale taxability under the Act and treaty, not a valuation exercise or fair market value determination. However, on the materials as a whole, the arrangement was treated as a pre-ordained Mauritius holding structure aimed at avoiding Indian tax, so section 245R(2)(iii) applied. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395784