Skip to main content

Uniform capital gains tax rule for all: Delhi High Court

Residents and non-residents should pay same tax on capital gains from sale of securities, according to a Delhi High Court ruling that is expected to clear the fog on a tax question that foreign companies face.

Long-term gains from off-market sale of securities attract a tax of 10% while a higher rate of 20% is charged after adjusting for inflation. The issue addressed by the court relates to Scotland-based Cairn UK Holdings which was asked to pay 20% tax by the tax office. Cairn UK Holdings faced a claim of around Rs 390 crore for the assessment year 2010-2011 from the tax department for selling shares in its India subsidiary Cairn India to Malaysia's Petronas Corp International.

Cairn UK Holdings had sold 2.29% stake (or, 4,36,00,000 shares) in Cairn India to Petronas for $241,426,378 (approximately,Rs 1,100 crore at the exchange rate prevailing then). Since the share transfer was in off-market mode and not on a stock exchange, a tax of $85,584,251 (approximatelyRs 390 crore) was imposed on the long-term capital gain. Cairn UK Holdings had challenged the Authority of Advance Rulings (AAR), a quasi-judicial body, which ruled that a non-resident investor would not be entitled to the benefit of 10% tax rate on long-term capital gains from off-market sale of listed securities.

The AAR upheld the income-tax department's decision to tax the foreign company at 20%. Cairn UK Holdings had preferred not to avail benefit arising out of indexation (inflation adjustment) and calculated the capital gains tax liability purely on the difference between sale proceeds and cost of acquisition of shares. But, the I-T and AAR took a view that since the company had, for tax purpose, converted the gains from dollar to rupees (based exchange rates prevailing when the shares were bought and sold), it has to pay 20% on the gains (and not 10%).

But the court has ruled that the law for capital gains tax should be the same for residents and nonresidents unless there are strong grounds and reasons for the AAR to take a contrary view.

"There should be consistency and uniformity in interpretation of provisions as uncertainties can disable and harm governance of tax laws," a division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjeev Sachdeva said.

According to the petition, the concessional tax rate of 10% was applicable on long-term capital gains arising on sale of shares of an Indian company in case the benefit of inflation indexation was not availed. It said that the concessional tax rate benefit is available to both non-residents and residents and that if the legislature intended to restrict the option of concessional benefit to residents only, specific language would have been incorporated to that effect.

Article referred: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-10-12/news/42968469_1_indexation-long-term-capital-gains-tax-rate

Comments

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...