IT Act

Subscribe to IT Act via RSS
AMT: Does It Impose Additional Taxes Under Income Tax Bill, 2025?

Background

The Alternate Minimum Tax (“AMT”) has its genesis in the Minimum Alternate Tax (“MAT”), which was introduced to ensure that taxes were paid by even those companies that intended to avoid payment of taxes by engaging in ingenuous tax planning methods despite having earned significant amount of book profits. These companies, called “zero-tax companies”, while reporting significant book profits, paid minimal or no income tax by leveraging various exemptions and deductions available under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”). Continue Reading AMT: Does It Impose Additional Taxes Under Income Tax Bill, 2025?

Crypto Sales Prior to AY 2022–23: Taxable as Capital Gains?

The Raunaq Prakash Jain v. Income Tax Officer case addresses a significant cryptocurrency transaction-related taxation issue in India, i.e., whether gains arising from cryptocurrency sales should be taxed as “capital gains” or “income from other sources”. This decision is particularly important because it clarifies the tax treatment of cryptocurrency gains before the introduction of the specific tax regime for virtual digital assets (“VDA”) with effect from April 1, 2022.Continue Reading Crypto Sales Prior to AY 2022–23: Taxable as Capital Gains?

Tax reassessment proceedings: Supreme Court puts TOLA controversy to rest

The Supreme Court (“SC”) recently addressed the validity of reassessment notices in Rajeev Bansal[1], issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”), from April 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021, even though the reassessment regime had been overhauled with effect from April 1, 2021. The Revenue argued that these notices fell under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 (“TOLA”), which relaxed the time limits for reassessment due to the COVID-19 pandemic (“Pandemic”). However, several High Courts, including the Allahabad and Gujarat High Courts,[2] had ruled that such notices were subject to the new reassessment provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and hence, without the applicability of TOLA, were time-barred. The SC, in this landmark decision, ruled in favour of the Revenue, by upholding the validity of TOLA and laid down several jurisprudential observations in its judgement.Continue Reading Tax reassessment proceedings: Supreme Court puts TOLA controversy to rest

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

Are TDS provisions tedious? Opportune time for simplification

The Tax Deducted at Source (“TDS”) provisions under the Indian Income Tax Act of 1961 (“IT Act”) have been the cornerstone of the country’s tax architecture. A payer (or a deductor) is expected to be vigilant at the time of entering into any transaction, so that the required taxes are duly deducted and deposited with the Government where required, to avoid any adverse implications including penal consequences later. TDS mechanism, under Indian tax laws, has been a useful tool to collect taxes, targeting income at source itself. Continue Reading Are TDS provisions tedious? Opportune time for simplification

Introduction

The intricacies of tax law often unfold through nuanced interpretations and amendments aimed at addressing loopholes. One such facet is the taxation of capital contributions by partners in partnership firms (including limited liability partnerships), as delineated under section 45(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”). This provision deals with taxing transactions…

Supreme Court lays to rest the Most Favoured Nation Controversy

The Most Favored Nation Clause

A Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) with one country might have a different treatment for the same income as compared to DTAA with another country. To ensure that such differential treatment is avoided, and similar benefits are available across different DTAAs, DTAAs may include the Most Favored Nation (“MFN”) clause. The MFN clause is not a part of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (“OECD”) or the United Nation’s model tax conventions and is also not a standard clause of all DTAAs. Such a clause can be negotiated and included at the discretion of the contracting states for certain income (typically investment income).Continue Reading Supreme Court lays to rest the Most Favoured Nation Controversy

Background

The Income-tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) contains various machinery provisions which enable tax authorities to recover tax dues from taxpayers. When payments are made to non-residents that are chargeable to tax under the IT Act, payers (both resident and non-resident) are obligated to withhold tax at applicable rates prior to remittance of funds. Typically, no such obligation arises if the payments are not subject to tax in India. Thus, there are times when taxpayers don’t withhold tax on payments, believing they should not be subject to tax under the IT Act. However, if the Indian tax authorities take a different view, they may initiate proceedings under section 201 of the IT Act against such taxpayers, i.e., the person responsible for withholding taxes.Continue Reading Orders for default in withholding tax on payments made to non-residents must be passed in a reasonable time

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

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