sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
« Indirect Tax »
 CBDT notifies new I-T return forms
 Here are the key changes in tax rules to come into effect from today
 GST revenue growth in 2018-19 to match last 10 years’ indirect tax growth, says SBI report
 Things You Should Know Before Filing Your Income Tax Returns (ITR)
 All education loans do not get income tax benefits
 FM Arun Jaitley to focus on direct and indirect taxes
 Income Tax For Individuals – Assessment Year 2019–20
 States set separate dates to implement e-way bill
 What are direct and indirect taxes?
 Indirect transfer conundrum continues
 We expect significant changes in income tax slabs, say taxpayers

HC upholds legal provision against foreign tax havens
April, 14th 2016

In a major boost to the Centre’s efforts to prevent infusion of black money through shell companies in foreign tax havens, the Madras High Court has upheld the Constitutional validity of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which empowers the government to declare any country, with which it lacks effective exchange of information, a ‘notified jurisdictional area.’

Dismissing a batch of writ petitions challenging the legal provision, inserted in the Act through an amendment in 2011, a Division Bench of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and T. Mathivanan held that the insertion of Section 94A(1) did not amount to disrespecting international bilateral treaties to avoid double taxation. The judges also refused to quash a notification issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes on November 1, 2013 declaring Cyprus a notified jurisdictional area irrespective of having entered into an ‘Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital,’ with the Republic of Cyprus on December 21, 1994.

Stating that the 1994 agreement contained a specific provision for exchange of information about investments made by Cyprus-based companies in India and the source of investments, the judges said that a breach of that obligation had forced the Centre to declare Cyprus a notified jurisdictional area and demand tax from assesses transacting with individuals or companies in that country.

Authoring the judgement, Mr. Justice Ramasubramanian said that defensive measures such as insertion of Section 94A were aimed at enforcing transparency in cross border remittances and preventing abuse of benefits conferred by treaties. He recalled that leaders of G20 nations adopted certain resolutions in the London summit on April 2, 2009 and issued a statement which read: “We agree to take action against non-cooperative jurisdictions including tax havens.”

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Content Management System development CMS development Content Management Solutions CMS Solutions Content Management Services CMS Services CMS Software

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions