Taxation

Protocol amending DTAC between India and Japan. Double Taxation Amending Convention was originally signed on 7th March 1989

Protocol amending DTAC between India and Japan. The Convention was originally signed on 07-03-1989

Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Direct Taxes

PRESS RELEASE

New Delhi, 9th November, 2016.

Sub: Notification of Protocol amending the Double Taxation Amending Convention (DTAC) between India and Japan

The existing Double Taxation Avoidance Convention between India and Japan was signed on 7th March, 1989 and was notified on 1st March 1990. The DTAC was subsequently amended on 24th February, 2006. A Protocol amending the DTAC between India and Japan for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income which was signed on 11th December, 2015 has entered into force on 29th October, 2016 on completion of procedural requirements by both countries. The Protocol amending the DTAC aims to promote transparency and cooperation between the two countries.

The Protocol provides for internationally accepted standards for effective exchange of information on tax matters including bank information and information without domestic tax interest. It is further provided that the information received from Japan in respect of a resident of India can be shared with other law enforcement agencies with authorization of the Competent Authority of Japan and vice versa.

The Protocol provides for exemption of interest income from taxation in the source country with respect to debt-claims insured by the Government/Government owned financial institutions.

The Protocol inserts a new article on assistance in collection of taxes. India and Japan shall now lend assistance to each other in the collection of revenue claims.

(Meenakshi J Goswami)
Commissioner of Income Tax
(Media and Technical Policy)
Official Spokesperson, CBDT.

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…

2 hours ago
  • RTI

Lokayukta Police not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005 – SC

Lokayukta Police not an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation  and hence not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…

4 days ago
  • ICAI

CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.

CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…

6 days ago
  • Insurance

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act. Courts to award a composite…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price

CIT Revision notice u/s 263 quashed as the Assessing Officer rightly taken DVO value of property sold as actual sale…

1 week ago