May 2024

Capital gains on transfer of shares acquired prior to 1st April, 2017 were not taxable in terms of Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius DTAA because of grandfathering provisions; it was evident from TRC that Assessee was a tax resident of Mauritius.

By Geeta Jani | Dhishat B Mehta | Bhaumik Goda, Chartered Accountants

Reading Time 4 mins

3 [2024] 160 taxmann.com 632 (Delhi - Trib.)

Norwest Venture Partners X-Mauritius vs. DCIT

ITA No: 2311/Del/2023

A.Y.: 2020-21

Dated: 19^th March, 2024

Capital gains on transfer of shares acquired prior to 1^st April, 2017 were not taxable in terms of Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius DTAA because of grandfathering provisions; it was evident from TRC that Assessee was a tax resident of Mauritius.

FACTS

Assessee was a non-resident company incorporated under laws of Mauritius. The Assessee was an investment holding company. The ultimate parent company of Assessee was beneficially owned by an American entity. Assessee was issued Category-1 Global Business License in Mauritius. Based on Tax Residency Certificate (“TRC”) issued by Mauritius Revenue Authority, it was a tax

Download PDF

Journal

Resources

About

Reach Us

Audio Version

May 2024

Capital gains on transfer of shares acquired prior to 1st April, 2017 were not taxable in terms of Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius DTAA because of grandfathering provisions; it was evident from TRC that Assessee was a tax resident of Mauritius.

You May Also Like

Income returned and assessed in the hands of the wife cannot again be taxed in the hands of the husband by invoking section 64(1)(ii)

Income in respect of offshore supply of goods made on CIF basis to customers in India did not accrue in India, and hence, was not liable to tax in India because property in goods had passed outside India and payment was also made outside India.

Journal

Resources

About

Reach Us

Audio Version

May 2024

Capital gains on transfer of shares acquired prior to 1st April, 2017 were not taxable in terms of Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius DTAA because of grandfathering provisions; it was evident from TRC that Assessee was a tax resident of Mauritius.

Share

You May Also Like

Income returned and assessed in the hands of the wife cannot again be taxed in the hands of the husband by invoking section 64(1)(ii)

Income in respect of offshore supply of goods made on CIF basis to customers in India did not accrue in India, and hence, was not liable to tax in India because property in goods had passed outside India and payment was also made outside India.