https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295680 An advance ruling application could not be refused merely because the Revenue alleged tax avoidance or sought additional information that was not shown to be necessary for deciding the reference; the applicant had furnished material relevant to the question raised, so rejection on those grounds was unwarranted. On the merits, a Mauritius resident holding a valid tax residence certificate was treated as the legal owner of shares in an Indian company, with the long-standing investment and regulatory approvals supporting treaty entitlement. Applying the pre-amended article 13 of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty, capital gains from alienation of those shares fell within the residence-state rule and were not chargeable to income-tax in India. en-us Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jul 2021 15:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295680 An advance ruling application could not be refused merely because the Revenue alleged tax avoidance or sought additional information that was not shown to be necessary for deciding the reference; the applicant had furnished material relevant to the question raised, so rejection on those grounds was unwarranted. On the merits, a Mauritius resident holding a valid tax residence certificate was treated as the legal owner of shares in an Indian company, with the long-standing investment and regulatory approvals supporting treaty entitlement. Applying the pre-amended article 13 of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty, capital gains from alienation of those shares fell within the residence-state rule and were not chargeable to income-tax in India. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295680