I work in Abu Dhabi but my family, my home and most of my assets are in India. Can I still be treated as a UAE resident under the treaty and get the concessional rates on my Indian dividends, interest and capital gains?
Yes, on these facts. The Authority worked article 4 of the India-UAE agreement in order and found the applicant, a radiologist employed at a government hospital in Abu Dhabi, resident of both States under article 4(1), with a permanent home available in both, and a centre of vital interests that could not be determined because his personal ties were in India and his economic interests were in Abu Dhabi. That took the case to the habitual abode test, which pointed to Abu Dhabi, so he was treated as a resident of the UAE. Dividends from Indian companies, and income from Unit Trust of India units and s.10(23D) mutual funds, were taxable at 15 per cent under article 10; interest at 12.5 per cent under article 11; and capital gains on shares, debentures, units and like securities were exempt in India under article 13. The ruling binds only Dr Bhatt.
Pronounced by the Authority for Advance Rulings (S. Ranganathan, Chairman and R. L. Meena, Member) on 1996-08-01, reported as [1996] 222 ITR 562 (AAR). It bears on section 245Q, section 10(23D), section 115A, section DTAA art 4, section DTAA art 10, section DTAA art 11, section DTAA art 13 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Residence & Treaty Benefit, Capital Gains and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is the ruling that shows the article 4 tie-breaker actually being worked rather than asserted. Three things in it are portable. First, permanent home is read objectively as the opposite of a home taken for a limited period, so a house held for the length of an indefinite foreign posting is a permanent home even though the taxpayer may come back to India one day. Second, the closeness of economic ties is not settled by arithmetic: the department pointed out that the Indian assets and income far outweighed the UAE ones and the Authority still declined to treat that as decisive, because the man's economic interest lay in the professional work that produced the money. Third, where personal ties pull one way and economic ties the other, the honest answer is that the centre of vital interests cannot be determined, and the cascade moves on to habitual abode. That is where a great many expatriate cases are actually decided. The department's counter then and now is that a UAE resident who pays no tax there is not 'liable to tax' and so is not a resident at all; the Authority followed its own earlier ruling in Mohsinally Alimohammed Rafik and declined to revisit it.
Binding only on the applicant who sought it, in respect of the transaction the ruling was sought on, and on the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and the authorities subordinate to him in respect of that applicant and that transaction — and only until the law or the facts change (section 245S). It binds nobody else. The Tribunal and the courts nonetheless treat a considered ruling as persuasive, which is why practitioners cite them.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Dr Rajnikant R. Bhatt, a radiologist, left India with his family for the United Arab Emirates on 2 January 1977, stayed about eleven years, returned to India on 27 June 1988 because his children's schooling could not be arranged in the UAE, and went back alone in May 1991. He has since worked as a radiologist at Mafraq Hospital, a government hospital in Abu Dhabi, on 12,100 dirhams a month, living in quarters allotted by his employer and unable to own immovable property there. He had invested substantially in shares, debentures, Unit Trust of India units and other mutual funds in India, yielding about Rs 5 lakhs a year, with Indian assets of about Rs 54 lakhs; his UAE wealth was some Rs 9.50 lakhs and about 2,30,000 dirhams. A clinic in India formerly run by him was being run by his wife, though stated to be dormant. His days in India were 365 in 1990-91, 83, 56, 39, 81 and 67 in the years to 1995-96. He filed under s.245Q on 19 January 1996, but that application was signed by his wife and was defective; a fresh application signed by him was received on 5 July 1996. He asked whether he could claim the benefits of the India-UAE agreement from assessment year 1995-96 onwards and, if so, the rates on his dividends, interest and capital gains.
The application was maintainable on the fresh application of 5 July 1996, the applicant being non-resident in financial year 1995-96. On the merits, the applicant could claim the benefits of the India-UAE agreement from assessment year 1995-96 onwards. He was a resident of India under article 4(1) because he is liable to tax here on his Indian income, and a resident of the UAE as well, the Authority following Mohsinally Alimohammed Rafik on the point that persons residing there are residents within article 4(1) even though there is no income-tax. Under the tie-breaker he had a permanent home available in both States and no ascertainable centre of vital interests, so the habitual abode test applied and he was treated as a resident of the UAE. Dividend income from Indian companies, from the Unit Trust of India and from mutual funds specified in s.10(23D) was liable to tax at 15 per cent under article 10; interest derived from India at 12.5 per cent under article 11; and capital gains from the sale of movable assets, being shares, debentures, units and like securities, were exempt from income-tax in India under article 13.
The Authority took article 4 clause by clause. On permanent home it refused to equate permanence with certainty of duration: a house taken for the length of a stay in Abu Dhabi that may last several years is not a house taken for a limited period, and the possibility of an eventual return to India does not make it less permanent. Since a permanent home was also available in India, where his wife and children lived and where a clinic stood in his name, the first half of sub-clause (a) was inconclusive. On the centre of vital interests it accepted that the personal ties in India were dominant, and that the Indian assets and income exceeded the UAE ones, but held that closeness of economic ties is not decided by an arithmetical comparison of values: his economic interest lay in the professional work at Abu Dhabi, and he invested in India precisely because he could not bring his family out. Citing the treatment of the Dutch and Franco-Spanish cases in Philip Baker's Double Taxation Conventions and International Law, it treated the question as one of fact and held that on these facts the centre of vital interests could not be determined. That took it to sub-clause (b) and habitual abode, which on any view was Abu Dhabi. On the distributive articles the only difficulty was units. Dividend is defined in article 10 by reference to income from shares or other rights participating in profits which is given the same taxation treatment as income from shares by the law of the State of the distributing company. Units are not obviously shares, but the Authority found that the Act gives income from UTI units and s.10(23D) mutual funds the same treatment as dividends in ss.80CC, 80L, 88A and 115A, and treated the exception in s.80M as irrelevant because the applicant is not a domestic company. So the units fell within article 10 and took the 15 per cent rate.
The authority is, therefore, of the opinion that the applicant should be treated as a resident of the U.A.E. for the purposes of the DTAA.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes, on these facts. The Authority worked article 4 of the India-UAE agreement in order and found the applicant, a radiologist employed at a government hospital in Abu Dhabi, resident of both States under article 4(1), with a permanent home available in both, and a centre of vital interests that could not be determined because his personal ties were in India and his economic interests were in Abu Dhabi. That took the case to the habitual abode test, which pointed to Abu Dhabi, so he was treated as a resident of the UAE. Dividends from Indian companies, and income from Unit Trust of India units and s.10(23D) mutual funds, were taxable at 15 per cent under article 10; interest at 12.5 per cent under article 11; and capital gains on shares, debentures, units and like securities were exempt in India under article 13. The ruling binds only Dr Bhatt. This was decided by the Advance Ruling (S. Ranganathan, Chairman and R. L. Meena, Member) and bears on section 245Q, section 10(23D), section 115A, section DTAA art 4, section DTAA art 10, section DTAA art 11, section DTAA art 13 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [1996] 222 ITR 562 (AAR). This is the ruling that shows the article 4 tie-breaker actually being worked rather than asserted. Three things in it are portable. First, permanent home is read objectively as the opposite of a home taken for a limited period, so a house held for the length of an indefinite foreign posting is a permanent home even though the taxpayer may come back to India one day. Second, the closeness of economic ties is not settled by arithmetic: the department pointed out that the Indian assets and income far outweighed the UAE ones and the Authority still declined to treat that as decisive, because the man's economic interest lay in the professional work that produced the money. Third, where personal ties pull one way and economic ties the other, the honest answer is that the centre of vital interests cannot be determined, and the cascade moves on to habitual abode. That is where a great many expatriate cases are actually decided. The department's counter then and now is that a UAE resident who pays no tax there is not 'liable to tax' and so is not a resident at all; the Authority followed its own earlier ruling in Mohsinally Alimohammed Rafik and declined to revisit it. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Take article 4 in its order and stop at the first limb that decides: liable to tax, permanent home, centre of vital interests, habitual abode, nationality.
Dr Rajnikant R. Bhatt, a radiologist, left India with his family for the United Arab Emirates on 2 January 1977, stayed about eleven years, returned to India on 27 June 1988 because his children's schooling could not be arranged in the UAE, and went back alone in May 1991. He has since worked as a radiologist at Mafraq Hospital, a government hospital in Abu Dhabi, on 12,100 dirhams a month, living in quarters allotted by his employer and unable to own immovable property there. He had invested substantially in shares, debentures, Unit Trust of India units and other mutual funds in India, yielding about Rs 5 lakhs a year, with Indian assets of about Rs 54 lakhs; his UAE wealth was some Rs 9.50 lakhs and about 2,30,000 dirhams. A clinic in India formerly run by him was being run by his wife, though stated to be dormant. His days in India were 365 in 1990-91, 83, 56, 39, 81 and 67 in the years to 1995-96. He filed under s.245Q on 19 January 1996, but that application was signed by his wife and was defective; a fresh application signed by him was received on 5 July 1996. He asked whether he could claim the benefits of the India-UAE agreement from assessment year 1995-96 onwards and, if so, the rates on his dividends, interest and capital gains. The matter was decided on 1996-08-01 by the Advance Ruling (S. Ranganathan, Chairman and R. L. Meena, Member). On those facts the Advance Ruling held as follows. The application was maintainable on the fresh application of 5 July 1996, the applicant being non-resident in financial year 1995-96. On the merits, the applicant could claim the benefits of the India-UAE agreement from assessment year 1995-96 onwards. He was a resident of India under article 4(1) because he is liable to tax here on his Indian income, and a resident of the UAE as well, the Authority following Mohsinally Alimohammed Rafik on the point that persons residing there are residents within article 4(1) even though there is no income-tax. Under the tie-breaker he had a permanent home available in both States and no ascertainable centre of vital interests, so the habitual abode test applied and he was treated as a resident of the UAE. Dividend income from Indian companies, from the Unit Trust of India and from mutual funds specified in s.10(23D) was liable to tax at 15 per cent under article 10; interest derived from India at 12.5 per cent under article 11; and capital gains from the sale of movable assets, being shares, debentures, units and like securities, were exempt from income-tax in India under article 13.
The Authority took article 4 clause by clause. On permanent home it refused to equate permanence with certainty of duration: a house taken for the length of a stay in Abu Dhabi that may last several years is not a house taken for a limited period, and the possibility of an eventual return to India does not make it less permanent. Since a permanent home was also available in India, where his wife and children lived and where a clinic stood in his name, the first half of sub-clause (a) was inconclusive. On the centre of vital interests it accepted that the personal ties in India were dominant, and that the Indian assets and income exceeded the UAE ones, but held that closeness of economic ties is not decided by an arithmetical comparison of values: his economic interest lay in the professional work at Abu Dhabi, and he invested in India precisely because he could not bring his family out. Citing the treatment of the Dutch and Franco-Spanish cases in Philip Baker's Double Taxation Conventions and International Law, it treated the question as one of fact and held that on these facts the centre of vital interests could not be determined. That took it to sub-clause (b) and habitual abode, which on any view was Abu Dhabi. On the distributive articles the only difficulty was units. Dividend is defined in article 10 by reference to income from shares or other rights participating in profits which is given the same taxation treatment as income from shares by the law of the State of the distributing company. Units are not obviously shares, but the Authority found that the Act gives income from UTI units and s.10(23D) mutual funds the same treatment as dividends in ss.80CC, 80L, 88A and 115A, and treated the exception in s.80M as irrelevant because the applicant is not a domestic company. So the units fell within article 10 and took the 15 per cent rate. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The authority is, therefore, of the opinion that the applicant should be treated as a resident of the U.A.E. for the purposes of the DTAA."
It was decided by the Advance Ruling on 1996-08-01 and is reported as [1996] 222 ITR 562 (AAR). Binding only on the applicant who sought it, in respect of the transaction the ruling was sought on, and on the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and the authorities subordinate to him in respect of that applicant and that transaction — and only until the law or the facts change (section 245S). It binds nobody else. The Tribunal and the courts nonetheless treat a considered ruling as persuasive, which is why practitioners cite them. An advance ruling binds only the applicant who sought it, only for the transaction it was sought on, and only the Commissioner and the officers under him in relation to that applicant and that transaction — and only until the law or the facts change. That is section 245S, and it means the ruling is not a precedent and binds nothing in your case. You cite it because the Authority reasoned the point out, often first and most fully, and the Tribunal and the courts treat a considered ruling as persuasive. Check before you rely on one: most of these were pronounced before 2009, and a great deal of cross-border tax has been rewritten since by amendment, protocol and judgment. On section 245Q, section 10(23D), section 115A, section DTAA art 4, section DTAA art 10, section DTAA art 11, section DTAA art 13, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The application was maintainable on the fresh application of 5 July 1996, the applicant being non-resident in financial year 1995-96. On the merits, the applicant could claim the benefits of the India-UAE agreement from assessment year 1995-96 onwards. He was a resident of India under article 4(1) because he is liable to tax here on his Indian income, and a resident of the UAE as well, the Authority following Mohsinally Alimohammed Rafik on the point that persons residing there are residents within article 4(1) even though there is no income-tax. Under the tie-breaker he had a permanent home available in both States and no ascertainable centre of vital interests, so the habitual abode test applied and he was treated as a resident of the UAE. Dividend income from Indian companies, from the Unit Trust of India and from mutual funds specified in s.10(23D) was liable to tax at 15 per cent under article 10; interest derived from India at 12.5 per cent under article 11; and capital gains from the sale of movable assets, being shares, debentures, units and like securities, were exempt from income-tax in India under article 13. It arises in Residence & Treaty Benefit, Capital Gains and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 245Q, section 10(23D), section 115A, section DTAA art 4, section DTAA art 10, section DTAA art 11, section DTAA art 13 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by S. Ranganathan, Chairman and R. L. Meena, Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Do not concede the centre-of-vital-interests limb where personal and economic ties point in different directions - say so, and move to habitual abode. Resist an arithmetical comparison of assets as proof of closer economic ties; put the source of the income and the work that produces it in issue. Check the treaty and protocol in force for your year: since 2007 article 4 carries a day-count test for individuals and article 13 no longer exempts gains on shares. Do not cite this to an officer as binding - it binds Dr Bhatt and his own transaction, nobody else.
Superseded by amendment. The treaty has been rewritten where it matters most here. A protocol to the India-UAE agreement, reported as signed on 26 March 2007, replaced the residence test for individuals in article 4 with a requirement of presence in the UAE for at least 183 days in the calendar year concerned, and amended article 13 so that capital gains from the sale of shares of a company in a Contracting State are taxable in that State - without grandfathering existing holdings. So the answer to the capital-gains question in this ruling is gone, and the gateway question that the tie-breaker was reached through is now largely a day count. The reasoning on permanent home, centre of vital interests and habitual abode survives as a method for the cases the day-count test does not settle. On the liable-to-tax premise the ruling adopted from Mohsinally Alimohammed Rafik, the Authority itself took the opposite view in Cyril Eugene Pereira [1999] 239 ITR 650 (AAR), which later Tribunal decisions - Meera Bhatia (2010) and Mahavirchand Mehta (2011) are the ones named in the commentary I read - declined to follow, so the position is again that a UAE resident may claim relief without showing tax actually paid there. I did not open Pereira or those Tribunal orders and am relying on a practitioner commentary for their effect. A search of Indian Kanoon shows this ruling named in Cyril Eugene Pereira (AAR, 1999), A.S. Mani (AAR, 1997) and Sheraton International (ITAT Delhi, 2002 and 2006); I read only the search listing. I have not checked how the Income-tax Act 2025 or the current domestic charge on dividends affects the rates in the ruling. The Authority itself was replaced by the Board for Advance Rulings from 1 September 2021 (Notification 96/2021), whose rulings are appealable to the High Court under s.245W, and the Income-tax Act 1961 has been replaced by the Income-tax Act 2025 from 1 April 2026, so the section numbers in this entry are those of the 1961 Act. That finding was checked against a published source, which is linked on this page, on 2026-08-23. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
No second source was found for this ruling; the entry rests on the full text of the ruling itself. An advance ruling binds only the applicant who sought it, only for the transaction it was sought on, and the Commissioner and the income-tax authorities subordinate to him in relation to that applicant and that transaction - and only for so long as the law and the facts stay as they were. It binds nobody else, though a considered ruling of this kind is treated as persuasive. The ruling does not decide the point most often argued today. The Authority expressly declined to reconsider whether a person residing in the UAE, where individuals pay no income-tax, is 'liable to tax' and so a resident under article 4(1); it treated that as settled by its earlier ruling in Mohsinally Alimohammed Rafik [1995] 213 ITR 317 (AAR) and said it made no difference to the outcome in any event. The library already holds entries for Mohsinally Alimohammed Rafik and for Cyril Eugene Pereira, which went the other way on that question three years later; this entry is added for the tie-breaker cascade, not for the liable-to-tax point. Note also that the first application was signed by the applicant's wife and was invalid; the Authority held the application maintainable only by reference to the fresh application of 5 July 1996, because the applicant was resident but not ordinarily resident in 1994-95 and non-resident only in 1995-96. A taxguru.in page lists the ruling with the same citation but does not state the outcome, and a journal article that describes it gets the case badly wrong - calling it a Tribunal decision on fees for technical services and permanent establishment - so neither was used as corroboration. The Authority itself was replaced by the Board for Advance Rulings from 1 September 2021 (Notification 96/2021), whose rulings are appealable to the High Court under s.245W, and the Income-tax Act 1961 has been replaced by the Income-tax Act 2025 from 1 April 2026, so the section numbers in this entry are those of the 1961 Act. The entry does not say how the 183-day residence test inserted by the 2007 protocol would apply to a man with this pattern of days, nor whether the tie-breaker is reached at all once that test is failed. It does not settle the liable-to-tax controversy, which runs through Mohsinally, this ruling, Cyril Eugene Pereira and the later Tribunal decisions, and which the library holds separate entries on. It does not deal with the domestic charge on dividends as it now stands. The reported citation is taken from the equivalent-citations line of the Indian Kanoon text and was not checked against the ITR volume, and no second host was found that states the outcome. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The application was maintainable on the fresh application of 5 July 1996, the applicant being non-resident in financial year 1995-96. On the merits, the applicant could claim the benefits of the India-UAE agreement from assessment year 1995-96 onwards. He was a resident of India under article 4(1) because he is liable to tax here on his Indian income, and a resident of the UAE as well, the Authority following Mohsinally Alimohammed Rafik on the point that persons residing there are residents within article 4(1) even though there is no income-tax. Under the tie-breaker he had a permanent home available in both States and no ascertainable centre of vital interests, so the habitual abode test applied and he was treated as a resident of the UAE. Dividend income from Indian companies, from the Unit Trust of India and from mutual funds specified in s.10(23D) was liable to tax at 15 per cent under article 10; interest derived from India at 12.5 per cent under article 11; and capital gains from the sale of movable assets, being shares, debentures, units and like securities, were exempt from income-tax in India under article 13.
TaxSphere, “Dr Rajnikant R. Bhatt v CIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/rajnikant-bhatt-aar-1996/
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I am an Indian citizen who has lived in Dubai for years and I hold Indian shares and debentures. Can I claim the India-UAE treaty on my dividends, interest and capital gains?
We are a Mauritius company set up to channel US money into Indian securities. Are we entitled to the India-Mauritius treaty on our dividends, interest and capital gains?
Two Mauritius companies my UK parent set up hold shares in an Indian bank. Can we get the India-Mauritius treaty rate on the dividends and exemption on the eventual share gains?
I live and work in the UAE, where individuals pay no income tax. Can I claim the India-UAE treaty on my Indian dividends, interest and capital gains?
