<?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>2010 (1) TMI 46 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35356</link>
    <description>Amalgamation of foreign companies with an Indian company did not trigger capital gains tax in India where the statutory conditions for amalgamation were met and the transfers fell within the specific exemptions. The transfer of assets by the amalgamating companies to the Indian amalgamated company was covered by the exemption for transfers pursuant to amalgamation, and the transfer of shares by shareholders in exchange for shares in the amalgamated company was likewise exempt. The objection that the arrangement was a mere tax avoidance device was rejected because the scheme had a genuine business rationale and was not shown to be a sham or colourable device.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 46 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35356</link>
      <description>Amalgamation of foreign companies with an Indian company did not trigger capital gains tax in India where the statutory conditions for amalgamation were met and the transfers fell within the specific exemptions. The transfer of assets by the amalgamating companies to the Indian amalgamated company was covered by the exemption for transfers pursuant to amalgamation, and the transfer of shares by shareholders in exchange for shares in the amalgamated company was likewise exempt. The objection that the arrangement was a mere tax avoidance device was rejected because the scheme had a genuine business rationale and was not shown to be a sham or colourable device.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35356</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>