A woman residing in Singapore for tax purposes successfully challenged a denial of capital gains exemption on investments sold in India, with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai ruling in her favor. The dispute centered on the application of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and whether gains from mutual fund units should be taxed in India.
ITAT Ruling Favors Singapore Tax Resident
The taxpayer, an individual and tax resident of Singapore, claimed exemption from Indian tax on capital gains earned from the redemption of Indian debt and equity mutual fund units during the assessment year 2022-23, citing Article 13 of the India-Singapore DTAA. The Assessing Officer initially rejected this claim, asserting that the gains were taxable in India because the mutual fund units derived value from Indian assets. This decision was upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).
The taxpayer then appealed to ITAT Mumbai, referencing a prior ITAT Cochin ruling in a comparable case involving an Indian resident of the UAE and the India-UAE DTAA. ITAT Mumbai examined the India-Singapore DTAA and ultimately sided with the taxpayer.
The core issue before the ITAT was whether capital gains from the transfer or redemption of Indian mutual fund units by a Singapore tax resident were taxable in India, or if they fell under the residuary clause of Article 13(5) of the India–Singapore DTAA, making them taxable only in Singapore.
Distinction Between Shares and Mutual Fund Units
ITAT Mumbai determined that Article 13(4) of the DTAA applies specifically to gains from the transfer of shares in a company, while Article 13(5) serves as a general provision for gains from property not specifically addressed in preceding paragraphs. The tribunal emphasized that mutual fund units are distinct from shares of a company.
Under Indian law, mutual funds are established as trusts under SEBI regulations, not companies, and their units cannot be equated with shares. The tribunal relied on previous rulings concerning similar treaties (India–Switzerland and India–UAE DTAAs), which consistently held that mutual fund units are not considered “shares” for treaty purposes.
Article 3(2) of the DTAA states that terms not defined within the agreement should be interpreted according to Indian domestic law. Both the Companies Act and securities law recognize shares and mutual fund units as separate instruments. Consequently, gains from mutual fund units do not fall under Article 13(4) but are covered by Article 13(5).
Taxing Rights and Treaty Benefits
Because Article 13(5) allocates exclusive taxing rights to the state of residence, and the taxpayer was a resident of Singapore, India did not have the right to tax the gains. The tribunal also affirmed that treaty benefits supersede domestic law under Section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when more favorable to the taxpayer.
The taxpayer had initially declared income of Rs 4.5 lakh in her Indian Income Tax Return (ITR) filed on June 27, 2022, including short-term capital gains from debt funds (Rs 88 lakh) and equity funds (Rs 46 lakh), for which the DTAA exemption was claimed. The assessing officer proposed taxing the entire amount.
The ITAT Mumbai reproduced an extract from the ITAT Cochin judgement in the K. E. Faizal case (India-UAE DTAA) to support its decision. As of the current date, there is no publicly available information indicating that the Income Tax Department has appealed the ITAT Mumbai decision.
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
