Taxation in India is one of the subjects over which both the federal government ('Centre') and the constituent states ('States') had power to legislate. Thus, while income tax and service tax were levied by the Centre, sales tax was levied by the States. Because of this, Indian businesses and individuals alike were subjected to a multitude of taxes, both by the State and the Centre. To address this, recently the Centre has introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST) to replace most of the indirect taxes. It is also possible that the current income tax law may be replaced by a Direct Tax Code: this has been in the making for years; but at present, income tax is levied under the Income Tax Act, 1961. A common feature of Indian tax laws, irrespective of the type, is the constant amendments and changes made to the law; these changes relating to the rate, the subject of tax and the procedure. However, the dispute resolution system under the Indian tax laws has largely remained the same, without any major changes in the recent past. Depending on the type of tax, there are minor differences in the procedure to be followed for dispute resolution. Be that as it may, the overall structure of the dispute redressal system is similar (i.e., the three-tiered appellate system, advance ruling mechanism and the settlement commissions). There are separate provisions pertaining to stamp duties (for instance, under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and similar States' legislations).
In terms of resolution of disputes, the sheer numbers faced by the Indian judiciary make timely disposals a big challenge. Insofar as appellate tribunals are concerned, the rate of disposals is fairly quick: a dispute may well get decided finally by appellate tribunal within a year or so of initiation before the tribunal. However, insofar as the high courts are concerned, the time periods vary considerably. Writ petitions are generally decided more quickly than appeals: each of these remedies is discussed in turn subsequently.
II COMMENCING DISPUTES
India has implemented the self-assessment procedure, wherein the taxpayers assess the taxes for themselves and file returns. Taxpayers having turnovers or receipt over certain limits are also required to get their books audited and file tax audit reports.
Under the income tax law, returns of income are required to be filed in respect of income chargeable to tax.2 The accounting year runs from 1 April to 31 March: income of an accounting year ('previous year') is brought to tax as the income of the next assessment year. Thus, the income of the financial year 2019–2020 will be chargeable to tax in assessment year 2019–2020; and the question of chargeability in general turns on the law as on the first day of the relevant assessment year (i.e., 1 April of the relevant assessment year). Returns of income are to be filed within a specified period from the end of the relevant previous year. The income tax law allows a further period for the taxpayer to revise the return to correct any bona fide errors.3 The assessee cannot raise additional claims for deductions or benefits before the assessing officer unless this is done through a revised return: this does not, barring express provisions,4 prevent fresh claims being raised before the appellate authorities.5
The assessing officer (AO) is empowered to take up the returns filed and scrutinise the same. In practice, only a fraction of the returns are taken up for scrutiny. The AO is entitled to pass an order of assessment either accepting the returned income, or making variations to the returned income. Time limits for completing assessments are specified: the general rule for assessment years commencing after 1 April 2019 is that orders of assessment cannot be passed after the expiry of twelve months from the end of the relevant assessment year.6 Thus, an assessment for assessment year 2019–2020 (which relates to income earned in the previous year 2018–2019) cannot be made after 12 months from the end of the assessment year 2019–2020 (i.e., the assessment must be completed before 31 March 2021). In September 2019, a system of e-assessment was brought into force by the government,7 under which there is no personal interaction between the assessee and the tax officer, with all communication routed through an online portal designated for this purpose.
Even after the assessment has been completed in the above terms, the tax authorities have the power to reopen the assessment if they have a reason to believe that some income has escaped assessment.8 This power can in general be exercised for a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in question; but the powers to reopen cannot be exercised to review claims that have already been considered during the scrutiny assessment. To exercise powers of reopening beyond four years, the AO must also be able to point to some failure on part of the assessee (for instance, non-filing of a return; or a failure to disclose material facts having a bearing on the assessment). If income has escaped assessment in relation to an asset located outside India, the an even longer limitation period (16 years) is provided. The Indian courts have given a schematic interpretation to the phrase 'reason to believe': the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment must be based on some tangible materials, and a mere change of opinion about the taxability of an item will not constitute a valid 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment.9
In addition to the powers of the AO to reopen assessments, assessments can also be 'revised' by the commissioner of income tax (an officer of higher rank than the assessing officer) if the commissioner is satisfied that an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The commissioner cannot exercise this power where the AO has taken a possible view on a debatable question;10 however, the revisionary jurisdiction can be exercised if the assessing officer has taken a clearly erroneous view, or has entirely failed to examine an issue.11
The Indian GST law also provides for a self-assessment procedure, where the assessee is required to assess the GST payable on the transactions it undertakes and file a return in respect of the same, on a monthly or quarterly basis, as the case may be. The assessee has to give details of the input tax credit availed in the said returns. If the zonal tax officer is of the opinion that there is a lapse on the assessee's part in respect of the payment of GST, customs duty or the availing of input tax credit, the officer is bound to issue a show cause notice to the assessee. Under the indirect tax law, it is the show cause notice that is the foundation of the dispute. After giving an opportunity of being heard, the adjudicating authority may then pass an order demanding payment of tax not paid or the input tax credit availed in excess.
III THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
Central tax laws provide for a three-tiered appellate mechanism. A person aggrieved by the tax officer's assessment order may approach the first appellate authority, who is generally a senior officer of the department designated to be so. The first appeal is essentially an administrative appeal to the commissioner (appeals), with the appellate authority having powers concomitant to the powers of the tax officers. An appeal from the appellate authority's order goes to the appellate tribunal.12 The appeal may go before a single member or a two-member bench, depending on the complexity of issue and the tax effect involved. In general, if the appellant pays 20 per cent of the disputed demand, the Revenue authorities themselves may not insist on further recoveries pending the first appeal before the commissioner.13 However, the pendency of an appeal does not in itself operate to stay the recovery of the demand appealed against, but administrative authorities as well as appellate authorities have powers to grant a conditional or unconditional stay. The factors relevant include the prima facie strength of the appellant's case and the balance of convenience.
In matters involving transfer pricing adjustments, a slightly different procedure is available. In such matters, the AO is required to make a reference to the transfer pricing officer for determining the proper arm's-length price in respect of transactions covered under transfer pricing regulations, and is then required to pass a draft assessment order. Objections against the draft assessment order can be filed by the taxpayer to the dispute resolution panel (a panel consisting of three commissioner-level officers). The AO is required to pass the final assessment order giving effect to the directions of the dispute resolution panel. In such cases, an appeal can be filed directly to the appellate tribunal bypassing the first appeal before the commissioner (appeals).
Appeals from the appellate tribunal, generally, go to the jurisdictional high court limited only to substantial questions of law.14 An assessee may approach the Supreme Court of India on appeal from the decisions of the high courts, subject to the special leave of the Supreme Court15 (which is granted at the discretion of the court in matters involving substantial questions of law of general public importance) or (even more exceptionally) subject to a certificate of fitness from the high court.16
The right to appeal under the Indian tax laws is, of course, subject to certain limitation periods, although the authorities do have a power to condone reasonable delays. Even the tax authority ('Revenue') has the right to prefer appeals against orders of the appellate authorities. However, the said right is subject to limits put up by the litigation policy issued by the government, under which the Revenue does not go into appeal if the tax effect involved is lesser than the limits specified.17
Certain indirect tax disputes can be directly appealed to the Supreme Court (from orders of the appellate tribunal). The right to appeal under indirect tax laws is encumbered with a burden to deposit certain percentage of the taxes under dispute. GST law being a recent introduction to the tax laws, the GST appellate tribunal is yet to commence functioning. Although, the government has constituted benches, members are yet to be appointed to the said benches. An impediment for the GST appellate tribunal, is a recent decision by the Madras High Court18 striking down the constitution of the GST appellate tribunal as being ultra vires the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court19 has also recently struck down recent amendments in the mode of appointment and conditions of service of the members of various tribunals. These decisions appear to be premised on the need to have a tribunal that is truly independent and not simply an extension of the revenue authorities.
Apart from the statutory appellate remedies, the taxpayers may also approach the jurisdictional high court or the Supreme Court by invoking their respective writ jurisdiction as envisaged by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The writ jurisdiction may be invoked in cases where the conduct of the tax authorities or appellate authorities is ultra vires the statute or procedure or where it is violative of the principles of natural justice. In practice, the courts do not entertain writs where an efficacious alternate remedy in the form of an appeal is available. However, there are exceptions: thus, the existence of an alternative remedy may not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction in cases where the challenged measure is wholly without jurisdiction, or has arisen from an egregious breach of the principles of natural justice.
Writ remedies are potent particularly in challenging reopening proceedings: once a notice for reopening is received, the taxpayer is required to file a return in response to the notice, and is entitled to seek the reasons for the reopening. On receipt of the reasons, the taxpayer can file objections to the proposed reopening. Those objections are required to be decided by the assessing officer through a speaking order.20 That speaking order is itself not appealable: an appeal would lie only against a final re-assessment order itself. Hence, a writ petition can be filed challenging the notice for reopening and the order on objections, even prior to the ultimate re-assessment order being passed. Of course, the writ court would consider only the jurisdictional objections and whether the assessing officer was acting within jurisdiction, having satisfied the jurisdictional precondition of a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. If prima facie the writ court comes to the conclusion that there is indeed a valid reason to believe, then the taxpayer would have to go through the regular appellate channels after the final reassessment order. But in situations where a proposed reopening is initiated wholly without jurisdiction – perhaps because the issue that has already been expressly considered in the original proceedings and the reopening is tantamount a review, or where the jurisdictional condition of there being a failure on part of the taxpayer is not satisfied – then writ remedies are an effective mechanism to obtain relief, without having to await the final re-assessment orders.
IV PENALTIES AND REMEDIES
As a part of the taxing mechanisms, Indian tax authorities have also been empowered to impose penalties on the taxpayers for violations ranging from non-filing of returns to non-disclosure of income or non-payment of tax. Penalties for procedural violations are generally quantified in direct amounts whereas penalties towards non-payment of tax or non-disclosure of incomes or transactions are quantified as percentages of the tax or amounts involved (generally, 100 to 300 per cent). From assessment year 2017–2018, penalties can be imposed for 'under-reporting' or 'misreporting' income,21 while for earlier years, the penalty was stated to be for the furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for the concealment of income.22 There has been a large amount of litigation on the question of whether penalties for non-payment of taxes can be imposed only when such non-payment is wilful.23 This is essentially on account of statutory presumptions as to mens rea. However, penalty cannot be levied merely because a claim is made that is not acceptable to the Revenue: if the claim is demonstrably bona fide, the fact that it ultimately turns out to be wrong would not be sufficient to levy penalty.24
Under the income tax law, penalty proceedings are not a part of the assessment proceedings. Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for the procedure to be followed by the tax authorities to impose penalties on the assessee. In particular, the procedure gives due regard to the principles of natural justice (i.e., due notice and hearing to be given to the assessee prior to impost). Further, Section 273AA also provides an opportunity to approach senior tax officers for reduction in the penalties. If an order has been passed against an assessee imposing penalties, the assessee may approach the appellate authorities for setting aside the said order. On the other hand, under both GST and customs laws, tax officers issuing the show cause notice have the powers to impose penalties on the assessee in the same proceedings. In such cases, the tax officer must include in the show cause notice an averment as to the penalties sought to be imposed with specific reference to the sections under which the penalties are sought to be imposed.
Apart from the above, Indian tax laws also provide for criminal prosecution of taxpayers in respect of certain offences such as wilful evasion of tax, non-payment of indirect taxes already collected, etc. The punishment for such offences includes imprisonment as well as fines. The tax evader is then tried as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, taxpayers may then avail the remedies provided for in the said Code. Certain offences can be 'compounded' by payment of compounding fees.
V TAX CLAIMS
i Recovering overpaid tax
In India, as far as income tax is concerned, the taxpayer is not required to make a separate claim for recovery of overpaid taxes: disclosure of such overpayment in the return itself is treated to be sufficient claim for the said recovery. Further, tax authorities are also required to pay interest on delayed disbursal of the refund for which the assessee is eligible. For such a claim to be made, the return must be filed within the time limits specified; though the CBDT retains the power to extend time limits in cases of genuine hardships.25
Even if the assessee may be entitled to such refund, the tax authorities have the power to retain the said amount and utilise the same against any dues outstanding from the assessee. For instance, if the taxpayer is entitled to a refund in respect of one assessment year (say, because there was an overpayment of advance taxes or excess tax was deducted at source), the assessing officer may be entitled to adjust that refund against an outstanding demand for a different assessment year.26
ii Challenging administrative decisions
Administrative decisions can be challenged in writ courts.27 Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to equality; this has been broadly interpreted to provide a guarantee against arbitrariness in state action. Traditional administrative law remedies are also available. The concept of legitimate expectations or promissory estoppel may not be available as against legislative enactments: however, the concepts have been applied in the context of administrative measures. The Indian Supreme Court has rejected the argument that the concept of legitimate expectations or promissory estoppel cannot apply to administrative measures dealing with taxation only because taxation is part of the sovereign activities of the state: it has been expressly held that the concepts can be applied to all administrative actions (including those in the domain of taxation), and is not restricted to only the trading or commercial activities of governments.28
The standing to make claims for refunds is with the taxpayer themselves: this is essentially because the procedure for refunds in direct tax matters involves making a claim in the return of income itself. Under the GST regime, a separate application must be made by the taxpayer for the refund of any excess tax paid or excess input tax credit available with the assessee. The limitation for filing the said application is two years under GST law. A peculiar prerequisite for claiming refund of indirect taxes is the concept of unjust enrichment: this concept is used not in the sense of a claim for unjust enrichment against the government, but is rather used to deny refunds if the taxpayer is 'unjustly enriched' by the refund claim. This is perhaps similar to the defence of passing on familiar to English restitution lawyers. Accordingly, the taxpayer has to prove that the ultimate burden of the amount claimed was not passed on to the buyers but was retained by the taxpayer. The claims are adjudged and orders are passed either allowing or rejecting the refund claims.29
Costs as to litigation before the courts and tribunals of the country generally have to be borne by the appellants themselves. However, under exceptional circumstances the courts may award costs to the appellants. In practice, cost awards by courts are extremely rare as regards tax litigation. Accordingly, the costs of the litigation ultimately fall on the particular party: even if successful, the chances of recovering the costs from the other party are minimal.
VII ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Indian tax treaties contain provisions relating to Mutual Agreement Procedures (MAP), and resolutions under MAP provisions have also been recognised by Indian courts.30 However, in general, revenue authorities in India have been averse to introduction of ADR mechanisms such as arbitration. In fact, in various claims arising under bilateral investment treaties (because the effect of a tax measure is considered by investors to be against provisions guaranteeing fair and equitable treatment to investments), arbitration has been invoked by investors. The Revenue authorities have taken an objection that tax matters are not 'arbitrable' under such bilateral investment treaties.31 India has also not accepted the mandatory arbitration provisions in the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty-Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI).32 In that background, expecting a formal arbitration mechanism under tax laws in India presently does not seem to be realistic.
i Advance ruling
The advance ruling mechanism under the Indian tax laws is more of a dispute prevention mechanism. It allows the assessee to obtain a ruling on a prospective transaction as to whether any and what quantum of tax would be payable on the said transaction. For an application for advance ruling to be entertained, it is essential that the proposed transactions not be seen as a device for tax avoidance: in cases of tax avoidance, applications for advance rulings may not be maintainable. The ruling given by the Authority for Advance Ruling is binding on the assessee as well as the tax authorities: there is no right to appeal, though it is possible to question the correctness in a writ petition before the High Court.33 The ultimate conclusion, however, will bind the taxpayer and the authorities; and the particular taxpayer or Revenue cannot question the Advance Ruling in the course of regular assessment or appellate proceedings.
The advance ruling authority under income tax law consists of two members: one judicial (generally, an ex-judge) and one technical (a senior tax officer) whereas the advance ruling authority under GST consists of two technical members. With respect, the lack of a judicial member in the GST advance ruling authority may not inspire the highest levels of confidence in that mechanism.
ii Settlement commission
The Indian tax laws also provide for a settlement commission that has powers to put an end to the dispute in lieu of payment by the assessee of a portion of the amounts involved. The settlement procedure allows the assessee to accept all the demands and pay a portion without entering into any protracted litigation.
iii Amnesty schemes
To reduce litigation, the government has from time to time announced amnesty schemes under which the taxpayers have an option to pay off the liabilities without entering into any litigation. Recently, the government announced the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, whereunder assessees were given an opportunity to declare any undisclosed income and pay 45 per cent of the income towards taxes and penalties. Further, with the introduction of GST, the government has also announced the Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme in 2019 to put an end to the litigation under erstwhile laws replaced by GST. A similar scheme has been proposed for direct tax disputes in the 2020 Budget; the scheme envisages taxpayers paying the tax component (with interest and penalties waived) to settle pending appeals.
i Judicial anti-avoidance approaches
The battle between substance and form is familiar to all persons interested in taxation all across the world: and the Indian judiciary has had to confront these issues in several cases. The present approach in this regard found in Vodafone,34 where the Supreme Court considered the various positions taken by the courts on the point. The court appears to have adopted a sliding-scale approach; form is important, but the form may yield if there is no business purpose in a given structure. The court ultimately held:
. . . at the threshold, the burden is on the Revenue to allege and establish abuse, in the sense of tax avoidance in the creation and/or use of such structure(s). In the application of a judicial anti-avoidance rule, the Revenue may invoke the 'substance over form' principle or 'piercing the corporate veil' test only after it is able to establish on the basis of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction that the impugned transaction is a sham or tax avoidant . . .
It is the task of the Revenue/Court to ascertain the legal nature of the transaction and while doing so it has to look at the entire transaction as a whole and not to adopt a dissecting approach. The Revenue cannot start with the question as to whether the impugned transaction is a tax deferment/saving device but that it should apply the 'look at' test to ascertain its true legal nature . . .
the onus will be on the Revenue to identify the scheme and its dominant purpose . . .
The corporate business purpose of a transaction is evidence of the fact that the impugned transaction is not undertaken as a colourable or artificial device. The stronger the evidence of a device, the stronger the corporate business purpose must exist to overcome the evidence of a device . . .
ii General anti-avoidance rules (GAAR)
GAAR was officially inserted into the Indian income tax law by the Finance Act, 2013 with the introduction of Chapter X-A in the Income Tax Act, 1961. The GAAR as introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 were originally to take effect from 1 April 2016. However, the operation of GAAR was postponed to 1 April 2018 by the Finance Act, 2015.
Under the Indian GAAR, the tax officer has been empowered to declare a transaction or a set of transactions to be an 'impermissible avoidance agreement' (i.e., an arrangement, the main purpose of which is to obtain a tax benefit, which inter alia lacks commercial substance). In particular, Section 97 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specifies as to what arrangements may be said to lack commercial substance, enumerating therein several arrangements such as round-trip financing, accommodation entries, offsetting entries, employment of tax havens, etc. Once any transaction has been so declared as an impermissible avoidance agreement by the tax officer, he or she may tax the said transaction on its substance rather than the form (i.e., by disregarding the steps in the transaction undertaken to avoid taxes). Section 100 of the Act specifically provides that provisions of Chapter X-A may be applied in addition to any other basis for determination of the assessee's tax liability. Prior to invocation of the GAAR provisions, an approving panel (consisting of several senior tax officers) has to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and further allow the assessee to file objections against such invocation. It is only after following due procedure that the approving panel may declare the transaction or transactions to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement and refer the matter back to the jurisdictional tax officer for determining the tax payable thereon.
The terms of the GAAR are rather broad and there is presently no clear judicial guidance on the interpretation of these terms. It is possible (subject, of course, to the underlying language) that decisions of other countries in interpreting GAAR provisions may be considered by Indian courts while interpreting the Indian GAAR provisions.
iii Transfer pricing and other specific anti-avoidance measures
Sections 92 to 92F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contain the transfer pricing provisions as applicable to intra-group cross-border transactions and certain specified domestic transactions. Under the said provisions, the transactions have to be conducted at an arm's-length price as defined under Section 92F of the Act. The law further provides for a compulsory filing of the accountant's report in respect of all international transactions between associated enterprises. A certain percentage of returns is selected for audit by the transfer pricing officer (TPO) who then evaluates whether the said transactions were at arm's-length price and passes an order on his or her findings. The law also provides for stringent penalties for violation of the transfer pricing provisions. A person aggrieved by the TPO's order may pursue the appeal mechanism under the law (discussed in Section III). On the present law, the transfer pricing provisions are attracted without a requirement on the Revenue to demonstrate any tax avoidance on the facts; indeed, a motive of tax avoidance also has been held to be unnecessary. Indian law also contains other anti-avoidance mechanisms including restrictions on expenses in the case of domestic related-party transactions,35 measures to combat dividend stripping,36 etc.
India has been fairly actively involved in the base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project. The Finance Bill, 2016, considered the introduction of several measures including an equalisation levy, patent box regime, country-by-country reporting etc. Further, India has introduced thin capitalisation rules with effect from Assessment Year 2018–2019: although motivated by the BEPS project, the Indian approach prefers a fixed ratio rule rather than a group ratio rule.37
ix DOUBLE TAXATION TREATIES
As of December 2019, India has entered into several double-tax avoidance agreements (DTAAs) that have legal effect in terms of Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Article 253 of the Indian Constitution empowers the parliament to make laws for giving effect to international agreements. Accordingly, Chapter IX has been included in the Income Tax Act, 1961 to give effect to any DTAA entered into by India. Section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act explicitly provides that the provisions of DTAAs shall prevail over the provisions of the domestic law to the extent they are beneficial for the assessee. The courts have also time and again held that a DTAA shall over-ride the provisions of the Income Tax Act where beneficial.38 Although India is not a signatory to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it would be permissible to have recourse to the principles in that treaty (as reflective of customary international law) in interpreting DTAAs. Explanation 4 to Section 90, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2017, provides that if a term is used in a DTAA but not defined under the DTAA, then – if the same term is defined under the Income Tax Act – the meaning assigned under the Act will prevail. If a term is defined in the treaty itself, then of course, an amendment to the definition under the Act would not alter the protections granted under the treaty.39
x AREAS OF FOCUS
Recent years have seen several tax-related claims against India under bilateral investment treaties; these claims include both direct40 as well as indirect41 taxation. Leaving these claims aside, Revenue authorities have been focusing on BEPS-related measures. The ratification of the MLI by India marked an important change, and several Indian tax treaties have been modified because of this. Transfer pricing issues including the transfer pricing treatment of intangibles remains a controversial area. Issues pertaining to the tax treatment of software (and whether payment for software amounts to 'royalty') are presently pending before the Supreme Court. Important recent changes to the law have been made very recently; and disputes involving these new provisions are likely to be focused on in the next few years: these areas include the GAAR, thin capitalisation rules etc. Another novel issue in tax disputes pertains to the anti-profiteering provisions under GST law. The taxpayer is required to pass on the benefit of reduction in tax rates (from cumulated tax rates of the erstwhile laws and the uniform tax rates of GST) by a corresponding reduction in the prices charged to the consumer.42 A consumer who feels that the benefit of reduction in tax rates has not be passed on by way of reduction in prices of any goods bought or services availed may approach the anti-profiteering authority by way of a complaint. The anti-profiteering authority then takes up the case and investigates as to whether and of what quantum benefit is derived by the assessee because of the reduction in rates. Several issues pertaining to the anti-profiteering authority are likely to come up to the higher courts for resolution.
xi OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS
Recent amendments made to Indian tax laws have sought to rationalise corporate tax rates. Although indirect tax has been reformed through the introduction of the GST, difficulties in implementation are yet to be fully ironed out. In terms of direct taxes, reforms are expected; and while there has been talk of a Direct Taxes Code for several years, there has been a further impetus by the present government. A committee has recently submitted a report to the government on reforms to the direct tax laws. In terms of tax disputes, the government appears to have adopted a policy of concentrating on high-value disputes; this is evident from its circulars on monetary thresholds, where the thresholds for filing appeals against decisions favourable to taxpayers have been progressively increased. Certainty, stability and quick resolution of disputes remain to be essential points of concern.
1 Mihir Naniwadekar and Suyog Bhave are advocates at The Chambers of Mihir Naniwadekar.
2 Section 139, Income Tax Act, 1961. Foreign companies deriving Indian-sourced income would be required to file returns in India, unless their Indian-sourced income comprises only of certain specified dividends and interest receipts and tax has been deducted at source on these payments: Section 115A(5), Income Tax Act, 1961.
3 Section 139(5), Income Tax Act, 1961. Similarly, a defect pointed out by the Assessing Officer can also be rectified: Section 139(9), Income Tax Act, 1961.
4 For instance: Sections 80A(5) and 80AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, mandate that certain claims for exemptions or deductions must be made in the original return of income itself.
5 CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom).
6 Section 153, Income Tax Act, 1961. The earlier limit was 21 months, but this has been lowered initially to 18 months and now to 12 months.
7 E-assessment Scheme, 2019, Notification No. 61 of 2019, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).
8 Section 147, Income Tax Act, 1961.
9 CIT v. Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC).
10 CIT v. Max India (2009) 295 ITR 282 (SC).
11 Section 263, Income Tax Act, 1961.
12 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for income tax, Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) for GST and Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for customs and certain taxes replaced by GST.
13 CBDT Office Memorandum dated 31 July 2017.
14 Section 260A, Income Tax Act, 1961.
15 Article 136, Constitution of India, 1950.
16 See: Section 261, Income Tax Act, 1961.
17 The present monetary limits below which the Revenue's appeals would not be maintainable are set out in Circular No. 17 of 2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
18 Revenue Bar Association v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 8910.
19 Rojer Mathew v. South India Bank Ltd, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1456.
20 GKN Driveshafts v. Income Tax Officer (2003) 259 ITR 19.
21 Section 270A, Income Tax Act, 1961.
22 Section 271(1)(c), Income Tax Act, 1961.
23 See: Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC), holding that 'wilful' default was not a requirement for imposition of penalty. The proposition must however be read in light of further case-law.
24 CIT v Reliance Petroproducts (2010) 322 ITR 158.
25 Section 119, Income Tax Act, 1961.
26 Section 245, Income Tax Act, 1961.
27 Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950.
28 Manuelsons Hotels v. Kerala (2016) 6 SCC 766.
29 See: Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536.
30 See: Turner Broadcasting Systems v. DDIT (2016) 380 ITR 412.
31 See, for instance: Cairn Energy plc v. Republic of India, Decision on the Respondent's Bifurcation Application (19 April 2017), Para 39(b) [recording India's stand that tax disputes are not arbitrable], available at https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw8842.pdf.
32 Part VI of the MLI.
33 Columbia Sportswear Co v. DIT (2012) 346 ITR 161.
34 Vodafone International Holdings v. Union of India (2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC).
35 Section 40A, Income Tax Act, 1961
36 Section 94, Income Tax Act, 1961.
37 Section 94B, Income Tax Act, 1961.
38 Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC).
40 Illustratively, Cairn Energy plc has initiated arbitration under the India-UK Bilateral Investment Treaty against India on account of the taxation of indirect transfers: https://www.italaw.com/cases/5709.
41 Nissan Motor Co has initiated investment treaty arbitration in respect of certain incentives under indirect tax laws. Whether this case involves a 'taxation measure' or not is disputed: see Nissan Motor Co v. Republic of India, Decision on Jurisdiction (29 April 2019): https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw10875.pdf.
42 See Section 171, Central GST Act, 2017.