Research and Articles
![](/Content/images/arrow-3-right-red.png)
Hotline
![](/Content/images/arrow-3-right-red.png)
- Capital Markets Hotline
- Companies Act Series
- Climate Change Related Legal Issues
- Competition Law Hotline
- Corpsec Hotline
- Court Corner
- Cross Examination
- Deal Destination
- Debt Funding in India Series
- Deal Talk
- Dispute Resolution Hotline
- Education Sector Hotline
- FEMA Hotline
- Financial Service Update
- Food & Beverages Hotline
- Funds Hotline
- Gaming Law Wrap
- GIFT City Express
- Green Hotline
- HR Law Hotline
- iCe Hotline
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Hotline
- International Trade Hotlines
- Investment Funds: Monthly Digest
- IP Hotline
- IP Lab
- Legal Update
- Lit Corner
- M&A Disputes Series
- M&A Hotline
- M&A Interactive
- Media Hotline
- New Publication
- Other Hotline
- Pharma & Healthcare Update
- Press Release
- Private Client Wrap
- Private Debt Hotline
- Private Equity Corner
- Real Estate Update
- Realty Check
- Regulatory Digest
- Regulatory Hotline
- Renewable Corner
- SEZ Hotline
- Social Sector Hotline
- Tax Hotline
- Technology & Tax Series
- Technology Law Analysis
- Telecom Hotline
- The Startups Series
- White Collar and Investigations Practice
- Yes, Governance Matters.
- Japan Desk ジャパンデスク
Tax Hotline
November 22, 2000The High Court refuses to grant a stay against the CBDT Circular reaffirming India-Mauritius Tax Treaty benefits
The CBDT on April 13, 2000 had issued a circular stating that tax exemption on Capital Gains should be granted to Mauritius-based FIIs once they have been given tax residency certificate by the Mauritius Income Tax authorities. This circular was contested through a public interest litigation (PIL) by an NGO Azadi Bachao Andolan.
The Delhi High Court refused to stay the operation of the circular. However, it held that should its final ruling uphold all the writ petitions which challenge the circular, the FIIs claiming tax exemption upto that time based on the Board's order would be penalized. The final ruling is scheduled for January 31, 2001.
There were two PILs challenging the circular on the ground that CBDT had wrongly construed the residential status of the FIIs who had registered their offices in Mauritius only to gain tax benefits in India under the Tax Treaty. The third petition contends that the CBDT was violating the very fundamentals for which it was granted powers as a statutory body u/s 119 of the IT Act by defending the right of these FIIs to claim tax exemption here under the Tax Treaty.
Source: The Economic Times, November 22, 2000