Photo of Thangadurai V.P

Thangadurai V.P

Principal Associate in the Tax Practice at the Delhi NCR office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Thangadurai VP is an expert in providing advisory and litigation services on various aspects of direct tax laws including corporate tax, international tax and transfer pricing.

He has made representations and had briefed senior counsels in making representations before various judicial fora including ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court of India. He also has expertise in advising various in-bound and out-bound M&A transactions. He has been contributing written articles to various reputed journals and publishers. He has also been part of the committees which organized some of the most reputed taxation moot court competitions in India. He can be reached at thangadurai.vp@cyrilshroff.com

Telangana High Court clarifies GAAR in relation to market-based transactions

Summary: In a recent case, the Telangana High Court has frowned upon the Revenue’s attempt to invoke GAAR in respect of a transaction that was carried out by the taxpayer through the stock exchange. By rejecting the stance adopted by the Revenue, the High Court categorically held that not every tax planning is bad, and it cannot be brought within the purview of GAAR. Only if a taxpayer colludes or connives to bypass statutory provisions, by entering into transactions that defy commercial logic, can it be examined.Continue Reading Telangana High Court clarifies GAAR in relation to market-based transactions

Foreign taxes cannot be allowed as tax deductible expenditure: Chennai ITAT

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (“ITAT”) Chennai bench in Zoho Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,[1] determined that foreign taxes paid by an assessee, which do not qualify for relief under Sections 90 or 91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”), cannot be claimed as business expense deduction under Section 37(1).Continue Reading Foreign taxes cannot be allowed as tax deductible expenditure: Chennai ITAT

Delhi ITAT delivers one of the first decisions dealing with Principal Purpose Test

The principal purpose test (“PPT”) has been introduced into the Indian double taxation avoidance agreement (“DTAA”) lexicon through the base erosion and profit shifting (“BEPS”) project of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) to dissuade sophisticated taxpayers from entering into transactions aimed at tax avoidance. The requisite amendments to the DTAAs have been made via multilateral instruments (“MLIs”).Continue Reading Delhi ITAT delivers one of the first decisions dealing with Principal Purpose Test

The India–Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), entered into in 1983, has since been the subject matter of contentious litigations. The well-drafted and reasoned ruling of the Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”), which explains the availability of benefits to a Mauritius-based investor, the significance of the tax residency certificate (“TRC”), the limitation of benefits (“LoB”) clause, and the grandfathering provision in the treaty, has provided much-anticipated relief and certainty to the taxpayers.Continue Reading Delhi High Court grants tax-treaty benefits to Tiger Global’s Flipkart exit

First judgment on GAAR holds bonus-stripping to be an impermissible tax-avoidance arrangement

The provisions of General Anti-Avoidance Rules (“GAAR”) were implemented into Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”), for the first time with effect from the financial year 2017–18. The GAAR provisions provide the Indian Revenue Authorities (“IRA”) with wide powers, including even recharacterising a transaction, ignoring a part or the whole of a series of transactions, disallowing expenses incurred, etc., if the main purpose of the transaction was to obtain tax benefits. Considering the aggressive nature in which the IRA generally scrutinises the GAAR cases, the industry is always apprehensive that these GAAR provisions could be invoked in a wide-spread manner. However, much to the relief of the taxpayers, the IRA have rarely invoked these provisions.Continue Reading First judgment on GAAR holds bonus-stripping to be an impermissible tax-avoidance arrangement

Google Adwords program is not taxable as either “royalty” or “Fee for technical services” in India

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (“Tribunal”), recently in Google Ireland Ltd. v. DCIT[1] allowed an appeal by Google Ireland Ltd (“Google Ireland”) and held that the payments received from Google India Pvt Ltd (“Google India”) for granting marketing & distribution rights of Google AdWords program were not in the nature of “royalty” or fee for technical services (“FTS”) and consequently it could not be brought to tax in India.Continue Reading Google Adwords program is not taxable as either “royalty” or “Fee for technical services” in India

Cognizant’s High Court approved scheme of arrangement was held to be a colorable device by Chennai ITAT

The ITAT recently dismissed an appeal and slammed Cognizant India Private Limited (“Cognizant India”) for what it perceived as  using a colorable device to evade taxes during its INR 190 billion share buyback exercise.Continue Reading Cognizant’s High Court approved scheme of arrangement was held to be a colorable device by Chennai ITAT

Share subscription above fair market value would be subject to angel tax

The Bombay High Court has recently allowed a writ, challenging a reassessment notice served on the Assessee (by the income tax department) for FY11-12 on share premium issued by it. The assessing officer, however, failed to come up with any reasonable grounds that led him to believe that income had escaped assessment during the relevant FY. 

Section 56(2)(viib) was introduced into the (Indian) Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) as an anti-abuse provision with effect from FY12-13, according to which, if a company issues shares at a value higher than its fair market value, then it will have to pay tax (angel tax) on such incremental value. Rule 11UA of the (Indian) Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“IT Rules”) provides mechanism for computing fair market value.Continue Reading Share subscription above fair market value would be subject to angel tax

Income Tax Act

In the case of Manas Vs. Income Tax Officer[1], the Hon’ble Madras High Court (“HC”) took serious objection to the taxpayer’s attempt at misleading the Court. The taxpayer had filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the reassessment proceedings and satisfaction order passed under Section 148A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”).Continue Reading Madras High Court takes taxpayer to task for mischief with costs