2012 (7) TMI 497

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Dynamic India Fund II (DIF-II), another company based in Mauritius. According to the applicant, the applicant company was set up to invest in growing sectors in India. The funds required for investments in India are pooled from various individual and institutional investors from different parts of the world by DIF-II and invested as capital into DIF-I, the applicant. The said funds are invested i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pital gains. It is seeking an advance ruling on the taxability in India arising out of the sale of the shares it holds in Ranbaxy Fine Chemicals Limited. 5. The applicant submits that being a tax-resident of Mauritius, it is entitled to claim the benefit of the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Convention (DTAC) by virtue of section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act. Article 13 of the DTAC wo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nstitutions) were from Mauritius and that this was a case of routing the investments by the investors through Mauritius so as to evade taxation on the capital gains that they would make and such an attempt should not be allowed to succeed. This is really a scheme for avoidance of tax in India. On the materials now available, it is not possible to accept this contention in view of the decision in U....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acts, it is not possible to accept the contention of the Revenue that the control of the applicant lies in India. 9. The argument that unless the capital gain is actually taxed in Mauritius the DTAC would not apply in the context of section 90(1) and section 90(2) of the Act, though attractive, cannot be entertained in view of the decision in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan. Even though ....