Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)

Union Of India And Anr vs Azadi Bachao Andolan And Anr on 7 October, 2003

In our view, this issue has also been addressed by Hon 'ble Supreme Court in case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra). While dealing with this particular issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the expression "liable to taxation" as used in Article 4 of India-Mauritius DTAA as well as the domestic law of Mauritius and held that merely because tax exemption under certain specified head of income including capitaI gain from sale of shares has been granted under the domestic tax laws of Mauritius, it cannot lead to the conclusion that the entities availing such exemption are not liable to taxation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically rejected Revenue's contention that avoidance of double taxation can arise only when tax is actually paid in one of 21 I.T.A.No.1774/Del/2022 the contracting States. Hon'ble Court held that 'liable to taxation' and 'actual payment of tax' are two different aspects. Thus, keeping in view the ratio laid down by Hon 'ble Supreme Court, as aforesaid, the reasoning of the Assessing Officer that since, the assessee is not liable to tax under Article 4 of the India-Mauritius Treaty, it cannot claim benefit of Treaty provisions, is liable to be rejected. "
Supreme Court of India Cites 94 - Cited by 747 - Full Document

Godaddy.Com Llc, Gurgaon vs Dcit, Circle- 1(3)(1), International ... on 24 July, 2018

Perusal of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Go Daddy.com LLC (supra), we find that the assessee in that case did not claim any benefit under the India-USA tax treaty as regards the disputed issue of the income received from web hosting services, web 24 I.T.A.No.1774/Del/2022 designing, SSL certification services etc. The Tribunal has categorically given a finding to this effect observing as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next