\u00a0Assessee is a resident of UAE, had invested in shares and debentures issued by Indian companies as well as units issued by mutual funds registered in India. She made an application to AAR seeking a ruling on taxability as well as rate at which tax was payable on income earned by him by way of dividends, interest and capital gains from sources in India. AAR came to conclusion that assessee was resident of UAE in terms of article 4 and was not liable to any tax in UAE and taxability of capital gains on transfer of movable assets in India would be governed by article 13(3) and, hence, same would not be taxable in India.The assessee filed her\u00a0 return claiming benefit of DTAA and assessment was completed accordingly The\u00a0 Assessing Officer issued notice u\/s 148\u00a0 on the ground that AAR in assessee’s case had pronounced its ruling on basis of its earlier ruling in case of Mohsinally Alimohammed Rafik v. CIT (1995) 79 taxman 75 \/ 213 317 (AAR). Subsequently AAR in its subsequent ruling in case of Cyril Eugene Pereira v. CIT (1999) 105 Taxman 273\/ 239 ITR 650(AAR) [1999] <\/u>came to conclusion that benefit of DTAA would not be applicable as applicant was not chargeable to tax in UAE. On writ the Court held that\u00a0\u00a0 as per section 245S a ruling would apply and be binding only on applicant and revenue in relation to transaction for which it is so sought, subsequent ruling could not as a matter of plain intendment and meaning of section 245S displace binding character of ruling rendered between applicant. The\u00a0 Assessing Officer had\u00a0 exceeded his jurisdiction in initiating reassessment\u00a0 notice is quashed. (AY. 1997-98 to 2000-01)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Capital gains-Authority for Advance ruling-Ruling would apply and be binding only on applicant-Subsequent ruling on other assessee cannot be the basis for reopening of the assessment-DTAA-India-UAE [S. 9(1)(i), 148, 245R, 245S, Art. 4, 10, 11. 13(3)]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52880","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-dKU","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52880","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52880"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52880\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52881,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52880\/revisions\/52881"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52880"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52880"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52880"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}