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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more