https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757782 Delhi HC held that advance ruling jurisdiction could not be barred on a mere assertion of tax avoidance; cogent material was required to show that the transaction was a sham or device, and that was not established. It further found that the Mauritius investment vehicles had demonstrated economic substance, pooled investor funds, and were not mere conduits or puppets of TGM LLC. The court also held that shares acquired before 1 April 2017 remained protected by the India-Mauritius DTAA grandfathering regime, and Rule 10U could not override that treaty protection. Beneficial ownership could not be attributed to TGM LLC on conjecture, so treaty benefits could not be denied. en-us Wed, 28 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Aug 2024 14:39:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757782 Delhi HC held that advance ruling jurisdiction could not be barred on a mere assertion of tax avoidance; cogent material was required to show that the transaction was a sham or device, and that was not established. It further found that the Mauritius investment vehicles had demonstrated economic substance, pooled investor funds, and were not mere conduits or puppets of TGM LLC. The court also held that shares acquired before 1 April 2017 remained protected by the India-Mauritius DTAA grandfathering regime, and Rule 10U could not override that treaty protection. Beneficial ownership could not be attributed to TGM LLC on conjecture, so treaty benefits could not be denied. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757782