Case studies on General Anti- Avoidance Rules (GAAR) · 2020. 5. 1. · 3 Case Studies on General...

Case studies on General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR)

1 May 2020

CA Pinakin Desai

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=Hien1BRkzrZiIM&tbnid=9SdV67Sb9L3h6M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.bcasonline.org/policy/advertise_website_soli.asp&ei=LIWqUuu-MsfOiAeRz4GYCA&psig=AFQjCNFFKbS3bgg7jY0MvfxVmlb0rwJPAA&ust=1386993301306846

Case Studies on General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) May 20202

Introduction to GAAR


► Tax planning is legitimate provided it is within the framework of law

► A tax-saving motive does not justify the taxing authorities or the courts to nullify or

disregard otherwise proper, valid and bona fide transaction

► However, law does not protect transactions that are a colourable device or sham

► Vodafone Holdings BV [2012] 341 ITR 1 (SC):

“DTAA and Circular No. 789 dated 13.4.2000, in our view, would not preclude

the Income Tax Department from denying the tax treaty benefits, if it is

established, on facts, that the Mauritius company has been interposed as

the owner of the shares in India, at the time of disposal of the shares to a

third party, solely with a view to avoid tax without any commercial

substance.”

Judicial GAAR (JAAR) – Precursor to GAAR


► Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373 (SC):

“The situation in the United State is reflected in the following passage from

American Jurisprudence:

“…If a taxpayer at assessment time converts taxable property into non-

taxable property for the purpose of avoiding taxation, without intending

a permanent change, and shortly after the time for assessment has passed,

reconverts the property to its original form, it is a discreditable evasion of the

taxing laws, a fraud, and will not be sustained…”

….

If the Court finds that notwithstanding a series of legal steps taken by an

assessee, the intended legal result has not been achieved, the Court might be

justified in overlooking the intermediate steps, but it would not be permissible

for the Court to treat the intervening legal steps as non-est based upon

some hypothetical assessment of the 'real motive' of the assessee. In our

view, the court must deal with what is tangible in an objective manner and

cannot afford to chase a will-o'-the-wisp.”

Judicial GAAR (JAAR) – Precursor to GAAR


Overview of GAAR

► An arrangement is an impermissible avoidance arrangement (IAA) if:

OR

OR

OR

Primary condition Tainted element presence

Main purpose

is to obtain tax

benefit

Creates rights, or obligations, which are not ordinarily

created between persons dealing at arm’s length

Results, directly or indirectly, in the misuse, or abuse, of

the provisions of this Act

Lacks commercial substance or is deemed to lack

commercial substance under s.97, in whole or in part

Is entered into, or carried out, by means, or in a manner,

which are not ordinarily employed for bona fide purposes

Arrangement


► “Look at” approach no longer survives

► Explain “why” have you done “what” you have done!

► Obtaining tax benefit cannot constitute legitimate reason

► “Purpose” lies in the mind of the progenitor

► Evaluate alternative counterfactuals in light of commercial objects

► Think from armchair of a businessman

► Purpose should be supported by adequate “substance”

Shift from “look-at” approach


► Finance Minister’s Speech in introducing Finance Bill, 2012:

“I propose to introduce a General Anti Avoidance Rule (GAAR) in order to

counter aggressive tax avoidance schemes, while ensuring that it is used

only in appropriate cases, by enabling a review by a GAAR panel.”

► Explanatory Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012:

“…keeping in view the aggressive tax planning with the use of

sophisticated structures, there is a need for statutory provisions so as to

codify the doctrine of “substance over form…”

GAAR counters ‘aggressive tax avoidance schemes’


► Extract from Shome Committee Report on GAAR

“In a regime of moderate rates of tax, it is necessary that the correct tax base be

subjected to tax and that aggressive tax planning be countered…”

…an avoidance arrangement should be first distinguished from tax mitigation and

second, if it is avoidance, whether it may, nevertheless, be permissible. Thus, every

case of tax avoidance should not be considered under GAAR unless it is an

abusive, artificial and contrived arrangement.”

► FAQ 10 of CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2017

“Q. How will it be ensured that GAAR will be invoked in rare cases to deal with

highly aggressive and artificially pre-ordained schemes and based on cogent

evidence and not on the basis of interpretation difference?

A. The proposal to declare an arrangement as an IAA under GAAR will be vetted first by

the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and at the second stage by an Approving

Panel, headed by judge of a High Court. Thus, adequate safeguards are in place to

ensure that GAAR is invoked only in deserving cases.”

GAAR counters ‘aggressive tax avoidance schemes’


► TP covers international transactions between associated enterprises

► TP covers specified domestic transactions

► GAAR is pre-cursor to PPT (Principal Purpose Test) of MLI

► PPT applies if one of the principal purposes of arrangement or transaction is

treaty benefit (unless meeting object and purpose of relevant treaty provisions)

► Tax benefit to connected persons also covered in GAAR

GAAR broader than transfer pricing and BEPS


► S.102(1):

“arrangement” means any step in, or a part or whole of,

any transaction, operation, scheme, agreement or understanding,

whether enforceable or not,

and includes the alienation of any property in such transaction, operation, scheme,

agreement or understanding.”

► Dictionary meanings of “operation” and “scheme”:

Operation means “an effect brought about in accordance with a definite plan; action”

Scheme means “design or plan formed to accomplish some purpose; a plot”

Definition of “arrangement”

► Shifting residence to Dubai for rendering services

► Forming SPV in TFJ for routing investments into India

► Resignation by a director to avoid trigger of s.2(24)(iv)


► S.102(10) defines “tax benefit” as:

“tax benefit” includes,—

a) a reduction or avoidance or deferral of tax or other amount payable under this

Act; or

b) an increase in a refund of tax or other amount under this Act; or

c) a reduction or avoidance or deferral of tax or other amount that would be payable

under this Act, as a result of a tax treaty; or

d) increase in a refund of tax or other amount under this Act as a result of a tax

treaty; or

e) a reduction in total income; or

f) an increase in loss,

in the relevant previous year or any other previous year

Scope of “tax benefit”


► Rule 10U(1)(a) prescribes de-minimis threshold:

“The provisions of Chapter X-A shall not apply to an arrangement where the tax

benefit in the relevant assessment year arising, in aggregate, to all the parties to

the arrangement does not exceed a sum of rupees three crore;”

► “Tax benefit” as defined in Rule 10U(3):

“For the purposes of this rule, "tax benefit" as defined in clause (10) of section 102

and computed in accordance with Chapter X-A shall be with reference to—

(a) sub-clauses (a) to (e) of the said clause, the amount of tax; and

(b) sub-clause (f) of the said clause, the tax that would have been chargeable had

the increase in loss referred to therein been the total income.” (refer earlier slide)

Scope of “tax benefit”


► Mr. X, a high-net worth investor, subscribes to redeemable

debentures of A Co

► Features are as under:

► Tenure: 3 years

► Issue price: INR 100

► Redemption: INR 130

► No interest payable during tenure of debenture, premium is

back-ended

► A Co claims redemption premium of INR 30 (130-100) as interest

expenditure equally over 3 years as per AS-29 [Madras Industrial

Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC)]

► Mr. X offers entire INR 30 as interest income in year 3 upon

redemption of debentures

► ICDS is not applicable to Mr. X

► Issue: Can GAAR be invoked to treat feature of back-ended

interest as IAA?

Example on “tax deferral”

Mr. X

A Co

InterestSubscription

to

debentures


Decoding GAAR application through case studies

• Setting up unit in SEZ notified area

• Slump sale to SPV at less than FMV

• Equity infusion followed by transfer of loss-making subsidiary

• Routing investment through SPV

Arrangements having

commercial purpose

• Choice of 22% CTR

• Change of residence

Legitimate statute driven tax

benefit

• Buy-back v. dividend

• Choice of entity to avail 15% CTR

• Foreign funds investing through an AIFChoice principle

• Inbound investment

• Reverse merger

• Demerger instead of merger

Artificial arrangement


Arrangements having commercial purpose


Setting up unit in SEZ notified area

► I Co manufactures goods for ABC, being a major customer

of I Co

► ABC has a condition that its supplier should be in the

vicinity of 2 km radius from ABC’s facility

► I Co already has a manufacturing facility at Location A,

were one of ABC’s facility is located

► ABC has set up additional unit in Location B and has

offered that I Co can be a supplier provided that I Co also

sets up an additional unit in Location B

► Location B is an industrially backward and SEZ notified

area

► Primary driver to choose Location B was preventing loss

of business from major customer; tax incentive is

incidental

► Issue: Is choice of I Co to set up manufacturing facility in

SEZ impacted by GAAR?

I Co

SEZ


Slump sale to SPV at less than FMV

Step 1: Sale of Business to SPV

P, Q and R

ICo

UT2 UT1

SPV

UT1

BV = 1,000

FV = 10,000

100% ① Transfer UT1

business at book

value of 1,000 Cr.

Step 2: Participation by Investor in SPV

P, Q and R

ICo

UT2

SPV

UT1

Investor

80% 20% ② Capital

Infusion at FV

of 2,000 Cr.


Slump sale to SPV at less than FMV

► I Co is carrying on two businesses UT1 and UT2, that are separately managed by different

set of promoter/s

► I Co is desirous of expanding business of both UT1 and UT2

► I Co desires to hold on to UT2 while expanding UT1 by finding Co-Investor for UT1

► Hence, I Co desires to sell part stake in UT1 to such Co-Investor

► I Co is informed by merchant banker and investment analysts that it will be easier to find

Co-Investor if UT1 is housed in a separate entity

► In anticipation of investment, I Co separates UT1 by selling to SPV at book value of INR

1,000 Cr. while FMV of UT1 is higher (INR 10,000 Cr.)

► After about 1 year, Co-Investor infuses funds in SPV for 20% stake in UT1 (INR 2,000 Cr.)

► SPV uses funds provided by Co-Investor to partly discharge consideration payable to I Co

and partly for its own business

► I Co uses proceeds from SPV to expand UT 2 and holds 80% stake in SPV having UT 1

► Issue: Under GAAR, can Tax Authority tax slump sale at fair value in hands of I Co?


Equity infusion followed by transfer of loss-making subsidiary

► List Co currently holds investment in loss-making

WOS

► WOS has incurred genuine business losses

► Due to slack in business, WOS has defaulted in

repaying loans from banks and private parties

► An aggressive and notorious creditor of WOS is

pressurizing WOS for payment – threatens to

invoke guarantees against List Co

► List Co infuses additional equity in WOS to fund

the loan repayments

► In next year, List Co transfers shares of WOS to

third party at substantial capital loss

► List Co also regularly bids for acquiring

companies under IBC

► Issue: Can capital loss be disallowed in hands of

List Co under GAAR?

WOS

(loss-making)

List Co

Infuses

additional

equity100%

WOS

(loss-making)

List CoThird Party

Buyer

Transfer

shares100%


Routing investment through SPV

► In 2017, NL Group acquired 10% stake in I Co, an

operating company through NL Co 1

► NL Co 1 has no activity other than overseeing investment in

I Co - NL Co 1 was established for following reasons:

► Group has policy of making foreign investments through

separate SPV instead of directly through principal

company (NL Co)

► NL Co has active business operations; active

infrastructure and employees in NL

► NL Co 1 has competent BOD to manage investment in I

Co and take administrative support (where necessary)

from NL Co

► Can borrow by pledging shares of either NL Co 1 or I

Co (pledging I Co shares may have regulatory hurdles)

► Borrowing at NL Co 1 level helps to maintain desired

debt-equity mix - comparable to industry norms

► Can invite foreign investment in future – either at

Netherlands (in NL Co 1) or at India (in I Co)

NL

India

NL Co

NL Co 1

I Co

100%

10%

Equity


Routing investment through SPV

► Both NL Cos are treaty residents holding valid

TRC/COR certificate

► NL Co 1 sells shares of I Co in April 2020

► As per taxpayer, main purpose of routing investment

through NL Co 1 cannot be tax benefit - as NL Co is

an “equivalent beneficiary”

► “Equivalent beneficiary” means any person who

would be entitled to an equivalent or more

favourable benefit with respect to an item of

income

► Issue: Can treaty benefit be denied to NL Co 1

under GAAR?

NL

India

NL Co

NL Co 1

I Co

100%

10%

Equity


Legitimate statute driven tax benefit


Choice of 22% CTR - Facts

► In 2001, I Co had invested in shares of List Co

► In 2020, I Co transferred such shares on RSE and

earned LTCG

► Under normal provisions, no LTCG arises because of

cost step up u/s. 55(2)(ac) linked to FMV as on 31

January 2018

► Under MAT, gains taxable @ 15%

► I Co opts for 22% CTR u/s. 115BAA and mitigates MAT

liability

► Under s.115BAA, MAT provisions are not applicable

to I Co

► Issues:

► Can choice of opting in for 22% CTR be challenged

under GAAR?

► Can GAAR be triggered considering s.115BAA is a

non-obstante provision?

I Co

List Co

Holds equity

shares as long

term capital asset


Tax Authority’s arguments

► Exercising choice to opt-in for 22% CTR is a unilateral decision - which constitutes an

“arrangement”

► Main purpose of exercising choice is to avoid tax

► There are no other commercial consequences

► The company does not enjoy any meaningful incentive which is required to be given up

Taxpayer’s arguments

► The taxpayer has been given an option by the statute itself

► The taxpayer commits himself to sacrifice of a number of possible incentives and

exemptions in order to avail the lower rate of tax @ 22%

► There are no conditions attached to the exercise of option

► The choice principle should be respected

► Even assuming that the choice is driven by tax benefit, none of the tainted elements will get

attracted

Choice of 22% CTR - Analysis


Change of residence

Facts:

► Mr. A has received an offer for employment with UAE

company

► Mr. A has been given an option to work from home by

staying in India

► Mr. A negotiates with employer to work by staying at UAE

► The counter offer of Mr. A was inspired by higher take-

home salary on a net of tax basis

► Mr. A travels to UAE for employment and stays there for

two years

► Mr. A becomes a non-resident of India for 2 years

► Family of Mr. A continued to be in India

► Mr. A permanently returns to India after 2 years

► Issue: Whether GAAR can be invoked?

Mr. A Mr. A

(India) (UAE)


Choice principle


Buy-back v. dividend

Promoter

ICo

100%

► I Co (a private limited company) is engaged in

manufacturing business

► I Co has huge accumulated profits ploughed back in

business without dividend pay out

► Contemplated business expansion given up in recent

past due to regulatory restrictions

► Promoters are in highest tax bracket

► I Co proposes to buyback shares at FMV

► I Co pays BBT on distributed income under s.115QA

@ 23.30%

► Issue: Can buy-back be re-characterized as dividend

under GAAR?


Choice of entity to avail 15% CTR

Promoter

ICo

100%

WOS

100%

► I Co is engaged in manufacturing automobiles

► Promoters intend to expand I Co’s business by setting

up new manufacturing facility

► By September 2019, I Co has already passed BOD

resolution; finalized investors/financiers; prepared

blue-print; placed orders for new plant/machinery

► S.115BAB is introduced which provides 15% CTR for

new manufacturing company

► I Co currently enjoys tax holiday and has accumulated

MAT credit

► Decision is taken to house new manufacturing facility in

separate WOS of I Co – WOS to opt-in for s.115BAB

► Issue: Can formation of WOS to avail s.115BAB benefit

be questioned under GAAR?

New

Facility


Tax Authority’s allegations for invoking GAAR

► WOS mainly formed to obtain tax benefit of 15% CTR – no commercial

justification for WOS when decision already taken to expand business within fold

of I Co

► Tainted element test:

► Lacks commercial substance as there is no effect on business risk and cash

flow irrespective of which entity houses business [s.97(1)(d)]


Taxpayer’s defenses against invoking GAAR

► Object of ‘arrangement’ is to expand the business

► New law expects taxpayer to carry out future expansions through new company

► S.115BAB linked to date of commencement of manufacturing; cannot discriminate

between ongoing and future business expansion

► Constructive use of an incentive is different from unintended abuse of provision

► Decision to opt-in has commercial consequences, such as:

► Impacts business valuation, rights and obligations of investors/financiers

► Imposes condition of new plant/machinery

► Compliance of SAAR in a truthful and non-abusive manner negates GAAR

► GAAR does not foreclose “choice principle”

Even if the main purpose is to obtain tax benefit, none of the other tainted

ingredients will be attracted


Foreign funds investing through an AIF

► F Co, a foreign pension fund, wants to invest in

infrastructural projects in India

► F Co is notified as a “specified person” u/s. 10(23FE)

► F Co invests in a Cat II AIF to the extent of 75%

► AIF invests in I Co through combination of 80 debt and

20 equity

► Interest income earned by AIF subject to pass through

taxation and taxable directly in hands of F Co [s.115UB(1)]

► Interest income exempt in hands of F Co due to

s.10(23FE)

► I Co claims interest deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii)

► S.94B does not apply for I Co since debt is issued by AIF,

which is a tax resident

► Issues arising under GAAR:

► Choice of entity i.e. AIF instead of direct investment?

► Choice of funding i.e. debt instead of equity?

► S.94B restrictions applicable on I Co?

Foreign Pension

Fund (F Co)

AIF

I Co (Infrastructure

Facility)

Outside India

India

75%

100% Equity

Debt – 80

Equity - 20

25%Indian

Manager

(Sponsor)


Artificial arrangement


Inbound investment

► In 2010, UK Co set up 100% subsidiary in Mauritius to

invest in India

► Mau Co is pure investment holding company; no other

business operations apart from overseeing I Co; no office

or employees in Mauritius; BOD of Mau Co manages 500

other companies; minutes of meeting ill maintained

► Mau Co is treaty resident holding valid TRC

► In May 2017, additional capital is infused in I Co for

business expansion

► Mau Co issues equity to UK Co; I Co issues equity to

Mau Co

► In March 2019, Mau Co intends to transfer all shares of I

Co

► Issue:

► Whether treaty benefit under Art. 13(4) can be denied

on shares acquired prior to 1 April 2017?

► Whether treaty benefit under Art. 13(3B) can be

denied on shares acquired post 1 April 2017?

UK

Mauritius

India

UK Co

Mau Co

I Co

100%

100%

Equity

EquityTransfer

Case Studies on General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) August 201734

Reverse merger

Mr. P

Merger

ACo

(loss-making)

BCo

(giant and

profit-making)

Issue single shareMrs. P

► A Co and B Co are privately owned by Mr. P and Mrs.

P respectively (i.e. P Group)

► B Co is highly profitable company in a mature

business which consistently generates cash surplus

► A Co has substantial trading losses

► No business synergy between A Co and B Co

► S.72A conditions unlikely to be fulfilled should there

be conventional (forward) merger

► B Co is merged with A Co; Mrs. P receives single

share of A Co

► As part of merger, A Co renamed as B Co and object

clause of A Co is changed

► Accumulated losses of A Co are fully set off in the

year of merger

Alternative fact pattern: A Co has discontinued

business but holds an important and non-transferable

tenancy right – no compensation payable if tenancy

right is surrendered or cancelled


Demerger instead of merger

Demerger

D Co

(loss-making)

Issue

shares

R Co

(profit-making)

(power

generation)Trading

business

► D Co – a closely held company, was engaged in trading

business

► D Co suffered losses and discontinued business operations

► R Co is into power generation business and making profits

► No business synergy between D Co and R Co

► R Co intends to acquire D Co’s business

► S.72A conditions unlikely to be fulfilled if there is merger of

D Co into R Co

► D Co’s business is de-merged into R Co; and R Co issues

shares to existing Promoters as consideration

► Demerger is s.2(19AA) compliant

► Accumulated losses of D Co fully set off against profits of R

Co in year of demerger

Alternative fact pattern:

► D Co manufactures electricity charged batteries

► R Co is unsure of D Co’s legacy and ongoing litigations

► Demerger ensures that ongoing litigation is not

transitioned to R Co


Consequences of GAAR

Section Consequences

98(1)(a) Disregarding any step or part or whole

98(1)(a) Combining or re-characterising any step or part or whole

98(1)(b) Treat as if IAA not entered into

98(1)(c) Disregard / treat any accommodating party and another as one

and same

98(1)(d) Deeming connected persons to be one and the same

98(1)(e) Reallocate income/ expense/ relief

98(1)(f) Treat place of residence, situs of asset or transaction at different

place

98(1)(g) Disregard/ look through any corporate structure

Consequences are inclusive; and are determined in such manner as is “deemed

appropriate”


GAAR mitigation


► SC ruling in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. (2012) (341 ITR 1)

“S.H. Kapadia, CJ - 68. … In short, 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.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. - 46. Revenue/Courts can always examine whether those corporate

structures are genuine and set up legally for a sound and veritable commercial purpose. Burden is

entirely on the Revenue to show that the incorporation, consolidation, restructuring etc. has

been effected to achieve a fraudulent, dishonest purpose, so as to defeat the law.”

► FM’s speech in Parliament while enacting GAAR provisions in Finance Act, 2012 (7 May 2012):

“After examining the recommendations of the Standing Committee on GAAR provisions in the DTC

Bill, 2010, I propose to amend the GAAR provisions as follows:

(i) Remove the onus of proof entirely from the taxpayer to the Revenue Department before

any action can be initiated under GAAR.”

► Pursuant to recommendations in Shome Committee’s Report, Rule 10UB requires AO to issue a show

cause notice to the taxpayer indicating basis of initiating GAAR; before making a reference to

Commissioner

Onus of proof


► Procedural

► GAAR provisions can be triggered after two stage approval – Commissioner and

Approving Panel

► GAAR shall not apply if the arrangement is held permissible by Authority for Advance

Ruling (AAR) – CBDT Circular 7 of 2017 dated 27 January 2017

► Exemptions provided in Rules

► Rule 10U(1)(d) - GAAR not to apply to income arising from transfer of investments made

prior to 1 April 2017

► Rule 10U(1)(a) - “The provisions of Chapter X-A shall not apply to an arrangement

where the tax benefit in the relevant assessment year arising, in aggregate, to all the

parties to the arrangement does not exceed a sum of rupees three crore;”

Safeguards from trigger of GAAR


Impact of grandfathering under Rule 10U(1)(d)

Shareholder

ICo

100% PaymentCapital reduction

► Shareholder had invested in I Co shares before 1 April 2017

► I Co implements scheme of capital reduction (assumed at FV)

► SC ruling in case of CIT v. G. Narasimhan [1999] 236 ITR 327 -

sale consideration upon capital reduction is split into dividend

(to the extenta of accumulated profits) and capital gains income

► In DDT regime, I Co liable to DDT to the extent of accumulated

profits – DDT liability may not be grandfathered as I Co does

not have any income arising from transfer of investment

► Post abolishment of DDT, shareholder liable to tax on dividend

income to the extent of accumulated profits

► Issue: Is dividend income arising on transfer of investment also

grandfathered?

“The provisions of Chapter X-A shall not apply to any income

accruing or arising to, or deemed to accrue or arise to, or

received or deemed to be received by, any person from transfer

of investments made before the 1st day of April, 2017 by such

person”


Impact of grandfathering under Rule 10U(1)(d)

► Tax Authority’s arguments:

► Grandfathering restricted only to income stream that arises from transfer of

investment - dividend does not arise only on transfer

► No distinction may be drawn between normal distribution of dividend or a form of

distribution which is co-terminus with event of capital reduction

► Taxpayer’s arguments:

► Rule 10U does not define the term ‘income’ – hence, the term ‘income’ shall

partake the meaning assigned in ITL

► In Rule 10U(1)(d), the term ‘income’ is qualified by ‘any’ i.e. income of whatever

kind arising from transfer of investment

► Consideration arises only from transfer of investment and not otherwise

► Consideration otherwise assessable as capital gains u/s. 46(2) is fictionally treated

as dividend only for purposes of tax computation


► Tax Court of Canada – D.G.H. Bowman, Jabs Construction Ltd. v. The Queen,

June 25, 1999

“GAAR is an extreme sanction. It should not be used routinely every time the

Minister gets upset just because a taxpayer structures a transaction in a tax

effective way, or does not structure it in a manner that maximizes the tax”

► S. E. Dastur

“GAAR will lead to prolific litigation - I daresay in the future, a substantial part of

the litigation will centre around Chapter XA of the Income-tax Act (concerning

General Anti-Avoidance Rule) bearing in mind the very wide, if not wild, provisions

which have been enacted.”

Concluding thoughts


Thank You !This Presentation is intended to provide certain general information existing as at the time of production. This Presentation does not purport to identify all the issues or developments. This presentation should neither be regarded as comprehensive nor sufficient for the purposes of decision-making. The presenter does not take any responsibility for accuracy of contents. The presenter does not undertake any legal liability for any of the contents in this presentation. The information provided is not, nor is it intended to be an advice on any matter and should not be relied on as such. Professional advice should be sought before taking action on any of the information contained in it. Without prior permission of the presenter, this document may not be quoted in whole or in part or otherwise.

Date post:	17-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Case studies on General Anti- Avoidance Rules (GAAR) · 2020. 5. 1. · 3 Case Studies on General...

Documents