Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that reasoning, every double taxation treaty that contains some sort of exemption is exploitative. The Mauritian treaty does not contain any abnormal clauses that are uncommon in intra EU treaties and for example, most US-EU treaties. Double taxation treaties are a way to incentivise people to invest in a specific country. Generally both countries exempt (or promise to partially exempt) booked income from the othe…
> By that reasoning, every double taxation treaty that contains some sort of exemption is exploitative. If they are treaties with tax havens, places used purposefully for those reasons, then yes, they are.
"Tax haven" is an ambiguous term. Double taxation treaties exist so investments aren't taxed twice, once at the origin and again at the destination. The Indian-Mauritian treaty mostly covers capital gains, and in that way is similar to most such treaties.
The principal benefit of jurisdictions like Mauritius, the Cayman Islands, Delaware or Singapore is less to reduce taxes than to simplify them. Indian taxes are wonky and volatile. Indian courts are slow and expensive. Going through Mauritius lets an international investor finance projects in India while abstracting away a lot of cruft.