oppn parties After Vodafone, CBDT Should Look At All Fruitless Litigations

News Snippets

  • Amit Panghal becomes first Indian male to win silver at the World Boxing Championships
  • "Gully Boy" to be India's entry for the Oscars
  • Rajeev Kumar called an "absconder" by the CBI
  • Alipore court refuses to grant anticipatory bail to Rajeev Kumar
  • Trump likely to sign a mini trade deal with India next week
  • Government planning a loan mela to cover 400 districts in two phases
  • PM Modi says Kashmiris need a hug from all Indians
  • NPA tag will not be put on any MSME till March 20
  • Government likely to announce another economic stimulus package today ahead of the GST Council meet in Goa
  • Air Marshall RKS Bhadauria, slated to retire just a few days from now, to be the next chief of IAF
  • PM Modi slams politicians from his own party who are making irresponsible statements on the Ayodhya case and tells them to wait for the Supreme Court order
  • Telecom panel says resident welfare associations (RWA) cannot give monopoly access to any one service provider and infrastructure in public spaces and residential complexes will have to be shared by all
  • Mamata Banerjee meets Amit Shah, tells him there is no need for an NRC in Bengal
  • After 14 days, there is no hope left for reviving Vikram, the moon lander
  • CBI teams search for elusive Rajeev Kumar
Election Commission announces elections in Maharashtra and Haryana on October 21. Counting and results on October 24. Bypolls, including for 15 seats in Karnataka, will be held simultaneously
oppn parties
After Vodafone, CBDT Should Look At All Fruitless Litigations

By Sunil Garodia

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Writes for a number of publications.
With the government deciding not to appeal against the Bombay High Court order in the Vodafone tax case where it had lost in its efforts to tax a transfer pricing case conducted overseas, the curtain seems to have come down on an unsavoury episode which tarnished Indiaâ€â"¢s image in business circles all over the world. In itself, the idea of taxing transactions emanating from notorious tax havens like the Cayman Islands was not bad. China and Australia, among other countries, do that if the transaction is for assets located in their country. But the problem lay in the fact that India sought to do it by changing the tax laws retrospectively.

When the transaction was executed, there was nothing in the statute to say it could be taxed. Vodafone and Hutchison must have sought legal advice before structuring the deal in a manner that would not put any tax liability on them. It is a perfectly valid way of doing business. No law in the world says that you have to mandatorily use a toll bridge if a free bridge exists nearby. If your awareness about the free bridge makes you save on the toll, it is your gain. The Supreme Court in its verdict in Vodafoneâ€â"¢s case said that it was not in CBDTâ€â"¢s jurisdiction to tax the transaction.

But if the authorities note down your car number as you cross the bridge and send you a notice to pay toll after a year on the premise that the laws were amended today to impose toll on that bridge from one year back, how would you feel. That was exactly the way Vodafone must have felt when their tax returns were scrutinized and they were handed a hefty tax demand after the UPA government amended the tax laws with retrospective effect to make capital gains on transfer of all Indian assets taxable in India even though the transaction was carried out overseas. The reason: they had allegedly undervalued the transfer price of the shares they had issued to their parent company and since the assets to be sold were located in India, even though the transaction was carried out overseas, they would have to pay tax here.

Now the government has decided not to pursue the case in the Supreme Court. The CBDT has also written to all its officers to adhere to the ruling in the Vodafone case and apply it to all such transactions. This will bring relief for many home grown companies and other taxpayers.

But the question is: the government has now woken up to the fact that challenging the order will be â€Å"fruitless litigation.” This has happened when it has become clear that MNCâ€â"¢s have become wary of investing in India. But there are thousands of cases where taxpayers have taken the government to court and have had their unfair tax demand cancelled. Yet, when faced with a similar situation, AOâ€â"¢s still demand tax unfairly. This results in n number of fruitless litigations.

It is now expected that the CBDT will go into all litigation it faces and discover the common thread of unwanted tax demands being raised on taxpayers. Cases where the courts have ruled consistently in the favour of the taxpayers for similar demands should be identified and the AOâ€â"¢s should be suitably instructed to adhere to court rulings in such cases and not raise frivolous tax demands.

These demands cause undue harassment to the tax payers and clog the judicial system. Lakhs of tax related cases are pending in various courts of India which have similar subject matter, right down to the section of the IT Act. It will be in the interest of all concerned if the CBDT does the needful.