Section 112

Section 112 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 112, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Tiger Global Eight Holdings v Dy CIT ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The AO says my Mauritius holding structure is treaty shopping. Is my TRC enough to answer that?
  It is enough unless the officer rebuts it with evidence. The TRC is statutory evidence of residential status, so the burden is on the Assessing Officer to displace it with cogent material; holding the assessee to be treaty shopping on suspicion and inferences did not meet that standard, and the Article 13(4) exemption was allowed.
• In re Mohsinally Alimohammed Rafik Advance RulingHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  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?
  Yes. The Authority ruled that the applicant, a non-resident who had lived in Dubai for seventeen years, was a resident of the UAE for the India-UAE agreement. Article 4(1) asks whether a person is liable to tax under a State's laws because of a nexus with it, not whether tax is in fact collected; and on the tie-breaker his permanent home, his closer personal and economic relations and his habitual abode were all in Dubai. Gains on his Indian movable property were therefore taxable only in the UAE under article 13(3), dividends capped at 15 per cent under article 10 and interest at 12.5 per cent under article 11. When the assets were acquired made no difference.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.