Cross-border transactions and interpretation of related international tax treaties often involves controversies and issues concerning interpretation of treaty provisions and thereby leads to litigation with tax authorities. A recent judgment of the Tax Tribunal (Tribunal) in India in the case of Apollo Hospital Enterprises Limited (AHEL), has given rise to a debate regarding the interpretation of the expression “may be taxed” used in the India – Sri Lanka double taxation avoidance agreement (Treaty). Sanjay Sanghvi and Ashish Mehta, of Khaitan & Co, explore the implications.
Unlock this content.
The content you are trying to view is exclusive to our subscribers.
The new guidance is not meant to reflect a substantial change to UK law, but the requirement that tax advice is ‘likely to be correct’ imposes unrealistic expectations
China and a clutch of EU nations have voiced dissent after Estonia shot down the US side-by-side deal; in other news, HMRC has awarded companies contracts to help close the tax gap