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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more