https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405006 Section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act gave effect to the more beneficial India-Singapore DTAA, and Article 13(4) was applied to share-sale capital gains so that taxation lay only in the State of residence, subject to the Protocol. The decisive issue was whether the limitation of benefit clause in Article 3 denied treaty relief. On the stated facts, the arrangement was not aimed primarily at obtaining the protocol benefit, the Singapore entity was found to be a bona fide investment-holding business rather than a shell or conduit, and its Singapore operational expenditure and residency documentation supported treaty eligibility. The capital gains were therefore not taxable in India and the treaty benefit was allowed. en-us Thu, 25 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405006 Section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act gave effect to the more beneficial India-Singapore DTAA, and Article 13(4) was applied to share-sale capital gains so that taxation lay only in the State of residence, subject to the Protocol. The decisive issue was whether the limitation of benefit clause in Article 3 denied treaty relief. On the stated facts, the arrangement was not aimed primarily at obtaining the protocol benefit, the Singapore entity was found to be a bona fide investment-holding business rather than a shell or conduit, and its Singapore operational expenditure and residency documentation supported treaty eligibility. The capital gains were therefore not taxable in India and the treaty benefit was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405006