<?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>2004 (9) TMI 100 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32099</link>
    <description>Gains from the sale of portfolio investments by an FII were characterised as business profits under Article 7 of the India-USA tax treaty because the entity&#039;s investment pattern, scale and frequency showed organised, systematic trading activity and the shares were treated as business assets rather than passive investments. The absence of a different applicable treaty article on the accepted facts supported that characterisation. The applicant was also found not to have a permanent establishment in India under Article 5, as it had no branch, office, employee or place of business in India, and the domestic custodian acted as an independent agent providing services to multiple clients. The treaty therefore protected the profits from Indian taxation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70741" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 100 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32099</link>
      <description>Gains from the sale of portfolio investments by an FII were characterised as business profits under Article 7 of the India-USA tax treaty because the entity&#039;s investment pattern, scale and frequency showed organised, systematic trading activity and the shares were treated as business assets rather than passive investments. The absence of a different applicable treaty article on the accepted facts supported that characterisation. The applicant was also found not to have a permanent establishment in India under Article 5, as it had no branch, office, employee or place of business in India, and the domestic custodian acted as an independent agent providing services to multiple clients. The treaty therefore protected the profits from Indian taxation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>