FORT CANNING CREDIT INVESTMENTS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that capital gains on renouncement of rights entitlement are covered under the residuary clause of Article 13(5) of the India-Singapore DTAA and are taxable only in the country of residence (Singapore). Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessees, tax residents of Singapore and FPIs in India, claimed exemption for capital gains on settlement of NCDs/Masala Bonds and renouncement of rights entitlement under the India-Singapore DTAA. The Assessing Officer re-characterized part of the gains as interest and taxed the renouncement of rights as capital gains on shares.
What were the issues?
Whether capital gains arising from renouncement of rights entitlement are taxable in India under the India-Singapore DTAA, and whether such gains fall under the residuary clause for taxation in the country of residence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Navin Jindal v. ACIT8 citing320 ITR 708 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund v. ACIT3 citing172 Taxmann.com 515 · 2025 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These appeals filed by the assessee are against the assessment order passed under the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel-1 (DRP), Mumbai
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 144C
- Mishoo Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 19/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 18/KOL/2026[2016-2017]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2016-2017
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 17/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 16/KOL/2026[2014-2015]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2014-2015
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 15/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026