Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2025 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2025 (3) TMI 932 - AT - Income Tax


ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issue considered in this judgment is whether the short-term capital gains earned by the assessee from the sale of "rights entitlement" should be taxed in India under Article 13(5) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) or be exempt under Article 13(6), thereby being taxable only in Ireland.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of Articles 13(5) and 13(6) of the India-Ireland DTAA concerning the taxation of gains from the sale of rights entitlements. The Tribunal examined whether these rights entitlements are akin to shares and thus taxable in India or if they should be treated as distinct assets taxable only in Ireland.

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

Article 13 of the India-Ireland DTAA outlines the taxation of capital gains. Article 13(5) allows taxation in India for gains from the alienation of shares in an Indian company. Article 13(6) provides that gains from the alienation of any property not covered in the preceding paragraphs are taxable only in the resident state.

Relevant precedents include the Supreme Court's decision in Navin Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which distinguished rights entitlements from shares, and the Tribunal's decision in J.P. Morgan India Investment Company Mauritius Ltd., which addressed the issue of setting off capital gains against losses under treaty benefits.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The Tribunal reasoned that rights entitlements are distinct from shares, as they represent an exercisable right to subscribe to shares rather than the shares themselves. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation that such rights are separate and independent from the existing shareholding.

The Tribunal also noted that the India-Ireland DTAA, even after amendments post-MLI, does not include "comparable interests" in Article 13(5), indicating that rights entitlements do not fall within its ambit.

Key evidence and findings:

The Tribunal considered the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, SEBI Circulars, and the OECD and UN Model Tax Conventions. These documents collectively supported the view that rights entitlements are distinct from shares, as evidenced by separate ISINs and different tax treatments under the Securities Transaction Tax (STT).

Application of law to facts:

The Tribunal applied the distinction between rights entitlements and shares, as established in legal precedents and supported by regulatory frameworks, to conclude that gains from rights entitlements fall under Article 13(6) of the DTAA and are taxable only in Ireland.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The Tribunal addressed the Revenue's argument that rights entitlements are akin to shares and should be taxed in India. It rebutted this by highlighting the legal and regulatory distinctions between the two, as well as the absence of "comparable interests" in Article 13(5) of the DTAA.

Conclusions:

The Tribunal concluded that the gains from the sale of rights entitlements are not taxable in India under Article 13(5) but are instead taxable only in Ireland under Article 13(6) of the DTAA.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held that rights entitlements are distinct from shares and thus fall under Article 13(6) of the India-Ireland DTAA. The gains from their sale are taxable only in Ireland, not in India.

The Tribunal quoted the Supreme Court's reasoning in Navin Jindal, emphasizing the distinct nature of rights entitlements from shares.

The Tribunal also upheld the principle that, when a taxpayer claims treaty benefits, the income is computed under the treaty provisions, and the source country gives up its taxing rights, as established in J.P. Morgan India Investment Company Mauritius Ltd.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to rectify the computation error regarding the refund amount as per the assessee's application under Section 154.

Other grounds challenging the assessment's validity were dismissed as infructuous, and the appeal was allowed on merits.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates