Get up to speed with the latest developments in the World of Tax. This week, the author wonders whether it is time to write an obituary for the DRP. Also another body-blow on the reopening front should shake the Babus of Aaykar Bhavan out of their reverie. And yes, don’t forget to tighten your seat belt because the CBDT Chairman’s missive on recovery might just prompt the AO to demand that you pay up that long outstanding arrear

Fasten Your Seat Belts – Its’ Recovery Time

The CBDT normally goes into “recovery & collection” mode in March when they have to report the figures of tax collection to the mandarins of South Block. So, the Chairman’s letter of 25th July telling his juniors that “focus” on “concerted efforts in certain categories may expedite cash collection” came as a bit of a surprise. However, it seems just to be more a case of saber-rattling rather than anything serious. The Chairman’s tone seemed quite casual. There was no sense of urgency in it. No words to shake the Babus of Aaykar Bhavan out of their reverie. His use of the words “I suggest” was significant. Also, the suggestions appear to have been casually made. The Chairman said “more than 20,000 crores have been stayed by courts/ITAT” and that “counsels should be advised to get the stay vacated” by bringing “the direction of the Supreme Court in the Vodafone case” to the notice of the concerned authority. Well, all that one can say politely and with humility is that a tutorial on the working of the Tribunal and the Courts may be in order! Meanwhile the ground reality is that assessees continue to enjoy unlimited stay from the Tribunal despite the clear legislative intent to the contrary. This is thanks to the blunders of the department (see Dear Department, Thank You For Giving Us Infinite Stay Of Demand). Mr. Chairman, can you do something to rectify this please?

(more…)

The author trains his guns again on the proposed National Tax Tribunal and makes out a compelling case on why it should never be implemented. Instead, a different approach is required to solve the problems of delay and cost in justice delivery says the author. The ten-point agenda formulated by the author will, if implemented in true earnest, deliver us the Nirvana of “Sulabh Nyay Satvar Nyay” (Simple justice, Speedy justice) assures the author

The Constitution of India is the Supreme Law of the Land. One of the most important provisions of the Constitution of India is Article 265, which provides that “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law”.

In the year 1998-99, the total pendency of tax appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were 3,00,597 it took six to seven years to hear the appeal before the Tribunal, and in High Courts the matters were heard after 10 to 15 years. Shri Palkhivala in his article “The Maddening Instability of Income Tax Law” (Income Tax Review – August-Sept, 1996 P. 57 has stated as under “A telling example of the total absence of a sense of time in our tax administration is afforded by Supreme Court’s decision rendered last November in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 2 SCALE 931. It was a case under Business Profits Tax, 1947. The accounting period was 1946-47. The amount involved was paltry sum of a few lakhs of rupees. The High Court’s order was rendered in 1965. The Supreme Court sent the matter back to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to re- hear the appeal 44 years after the close of the accounting period. Is there any other civilized country where a tax payer would not know the quantum of his liability for 44 years?”.

(more…)

The author argues that the adverse outcome of the Aditya Birla Nuvo matter was the result of shoddy drafting of the JV agreements by AT&T’s lawyers which the department’s lawyers exploited to the hilt. But its too early to write an obituary for the India-Mauritius DTAA says the author.

The judgement of the Bombay High Court in Aditya Birla Nuvo vs. DDIT must have sent a chill down the spine of foreign investors hoping to escape tax in India by routing their investments through Mauritius.

On paper, Aditya Birla Nuvo had a seemingly cast-iron case. Like hundreds of foreign investors before it, AT&T USA set up a 100% subsidiary in Mauritius, funded it with enough capital and got it to invest in the shares of Idea Cellular.

So what if AT&T Mauritius was a dummy company with no operations worth its name. It had the ‘precious’ Tax Residency Certificate from the Mauritius tax authorities and that is all that was required to wish away all tax headaches as per the CBDT’s Circular Nos 682 & 789 dated 30.3.1994 and 30.4.2000 and the judgement of the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706.

(more…)