According to the DTC regulations and the government`s amendment following the recommendations of the Shome Committee, an agreement becomes an inadmissible circumvention agreement if it meets two conditions: iii. Company “A” enters into an agreement to provide Company “B” with the technical know-how for the production of computer equipment. Company “B” pays royalties to Company “A” in return. 3. Where the Chief Commissioner or the Income Tax Commissioner is of the opinion that an arrangement is admissible in one year, they are not free to declare the same arrangement as in subsequent years inadmissible in accordance with the principle of consistency. 1. The approval panel shall have the power to apply the consequences of an illegal circumvention scheme to any previous year other than the year for which the proceedings are pending. The AO may initiate the evaluation procedure for that other year subject to the restriction of § 153, and for this other year, no further compliance with § 144BA is required. In addition, GAAR is the subject of much criticism, as anti-tax avoidance rules are difficult to implement because it is difficult to distinguish between different types of avoidance practices. Many provisions of GAAR have been criticized by various thinkers. However, the fundamental criticism of the GAAR regulations is that they are considered too harsh and there has been a fear that the tax authorities regularly apply these provisions and also torment the honest taxpayer in general.
i. The overall effect of the agreement differs considerably from the form of the individual steps or part of the agreement. This primarily establishes the authority of the Income Tax Department and gives the doctrine of substance on the form of legal inviolability to go beyond what an agreement should look like and lift the corporate veil. 1. Failure to comply, combine or reclassify part or all of the rule of inadmissibility. (1) Now that 4 years have passed since the entry into force of the GAAR Regulation, has anyone collected data on agreements that have been declared inadmissible under Article 144BA(3) or Article 144BA(6), and is there any evidence for us of these regulations? (2) After reading the article, it seems advantageous for the assessor to allow the CIT to make a decision u/s 144BA(3) and challenge it in court, instead of facing a decision not subject to appeal u/s 144BA(6). What has been the experience in this regard over the last 4 years? In State of W. Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. (2004) 266 ITR 721, the Supreme Court has held that tax laws cannot be interpreted on the basis of presumptions or assumptions.
A tax law must be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything that is not expressed; It may not introduce provisions into the Staff Regulations. Abuse or abuse was not defined anywhere in the law. Again, it is up to the courts to interpret what is considered an abuse or an abuse. In everyday language, this would mean violating the spirit/intent of a provision. 3. Tax Evasion – Tax evasion is an illegal arrangement of financial matters in order to avoid tax liability. This is a flagrant violation of the provisions of a tax law. It should be noted that there is a very fine line between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Tax avoidance becomes tax evasion when there is a criminal law provision for a particular transaction agreement. The DTC comprehensively defines the terms “illegal tax evasion scheme”, “tax advantage”, “industrial substance”, “bona fide business purposes”, etc. The procedure for declaring a regulation inadmissible is given in accordance with your /s 144BA, which will be discussed later. a.
a reduction, circumvention or deferral of taxes or other amounts payable under this Act; or An inadmissible cancellation agreement is one that includes general measures to combat tax evasion in accordance with the provisions of the GAAR. These regulations are specifically designed by the institutions/individuals in order to avoid a tax. § 96 – Inadmissible Waiver – Income Tax Act 1961 However, taxpayers are competent enough to plan their financial affairs by developing new techniques to reduce tax liability, which, although legal, are difficult for the tax service to accept. Thus, if SAAR fails to curb known tax avoidance techniques, GAAR would intervene to tax such agreements. Taxpayers want to reduce their tax liability through various means at their disposal. This can take the form of tax planning, aggressive tax planning or tax avoidance. There has always been a battle between tax authorities and taxpayers over aggressive tax planning or tax avoidance. Over the years, lawmakers have introduced several specific anti-avoidance rules (SAARs) to incorporate well-known tax avoidance techniques.
`An inadmissible circumvention scheme is an agreement the main objective of which is to obtain a tax advantage and it — 2. Tax evasion — Tax evasion — Tax evasion is the arrangement of transactions in such a way that it nullifies the legislative intent without breaking any law. Here, the country is deprived of its share of tax due. Tax avoidance is completely legal. Even though the transaction may seem a certain way, the document path is ready to have a lower/zero tax liability. The content of a transaction does not conform to its legal reality under a tax law. Subsection 102(1) defines an agreement as any step or part or all of a transaction, transaction, plan, agreement or agreement, whether enforceable or not, and includes the sale of property in connection with such a transaction, transaction, scheme, agreement or agreement. Under the Income Tax Act Provision, the GAAR would apply to an agreement entered into by the taxpayer that can be declared an inadmissible cancellation agreement (ABC). In Vodafone International Holding BV v. UOI (2012) 17 taxmann.com 202 (SC), the Supreme Court refused to look beyond what was clearly stated in section 9(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. H.H. Kapadia J.
in section 71 of his decision – A legal fiction cannot be extended by a useful interpretation, especially if the result of such an interpretation is to convert the notion of obligation to pay fees, which is also contained in section 9(1)(i), particularly on reading section 9(1)(i) with section 5(2)(b) of the Act. On behalf of Revenue, it is argued that under paragraph 9(1)(i), it may “include” the transfer of shares of a foreign corporation holding shares of an Indian corporation and treat the transfer of shares of the foreign corporation as equivalent to the transfer of shares of the Indian corporation, on the basis that section 9(1)(i) covers direct and indirect transfers of capital assets. For the above reasons, Article 9(1)(i) cannot be extended by an interpretative procedure to indirect transfers of fixed assets/immovable property in India. This would amount to changing the content and scope of paragraph 9(1)(i). We cannot rewrite paragraph 9(1)(i). The legislature did not use the terms indirect transfer in Article 9(1)(i). The General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) is an anti-tax evasion law in India to curb tax evasion and prevent tax leakage. .