Shailesh Yadav New Delhi [India]Aug 10 (ANI): Central says government will have to pay 8,000 chlorines to four companies including Cairn Energy, Vodafone and WNS Capital if the 2021 Tax Bill (amendment) passes by early next week. Said. JB Mohapatra, Chairman of the Direct Tax Commission (CBDT), after the passing of the Tax Act 2021 (amendment) in Rajasaba.
The bill abolishes the retrospective tax rules and removes all retrospective taxes levied on indirect transfers of Indian assets prior to May 28, 2012.
This will withdraw tax claims from companies such as Cairn Energy and Vodafone.
In an exclusive interview with ANI, the CBDT chairman said, “As far as I know, there are four cases. With the exception of Cairn Energy, the other three cases are WNS Capital, Vodafone and one more. Moha Patra “According to a statement from the Minister of Finance, there have been around 17 cases of which four were partially paid and four cases where the application was paid. The request was made but still found. There are 13 other cases that have not happened so it is a simple reimbursement by the Income Tax Office of the payments made that were filed when they were approved and approved by the President. You will be refunded for any changes that become legal. ”Moha Patra said we were about to end the case. The law is passed in Rajasabha. Now it will return to Lok Sabha for the meeting and then it will be sent to the Ministry of Justice and notified. The new law will come into force early next week, “he said. This has long been a concern of the ministry. The bill was passed in 2012. It had its own story. The prospects for tax law are not bad in and of themselves. This retrospective has always been. “” If you remember the history of Section 14A, which was published in 2001-02, it was changed by making an edition within two years and writing the rules of Section 14A through Rule 8. In 2008, when you got to Section 37, it was in a special Bombay Court ruling in the Planab construction case, amended accordingly by the 1998 Finance Act deductible, which contradicts this interpretation. For this reason the Tax Act of 1998, which is a retrospective of the 1962 was added a declaration. “
“The same was done for Section 9 of the Vodafone case, so in retrospect it’s not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on the specific time and circumstances that the retrospective begins, ”added the CBDT chief. Rice field.
“In the Vodafone case, the view has long been that, following the changes that came into force in 2012, corporate decisions made before 2012 should not be affected by the same regulations, i.e. a retrospective review. It was assembled in 2012, but it wasn’t a bug. It was rated very positively by the Indian government due to the change, ”added Mohapatra.
The CBDT chairman denied that the change decision was taken under any pressure. He said: “The reason for the dissenting opinion and the amendment tabled was very specific in a statement by the Minister of Finance in Parliament, and the amendment was not case-specific and case-independent. There was no pressure. “From the formal or informal side of promoting this change,” said the CBDT chair. “We had to think a lot about why this change was necessary in order to build trust and create certainty in the interpretation of tax law. This change is only intended to clarify and clarify the problem for the investing community. All of this is thanks to the integrated leadership at the bureaucratic and state levels and the political leadership that supported the pilots. This change. “
He said, “As far as I can remember, there was no objection to the change being made. The only problem that was raised was the timing of that change, but the timing was perfect.” Hopefully the legal process went smoothly. The government also recognizes that the time is right to invest in India and is regaining investor confidence. The deal is unilaterally clear and presented by the opposing party and stipulates that all forums and all global forums will withdraw all complaints and procedures they have filed on these issues. In the event of this change, they will receive no interest. Therefore, we will the refunds guaranteed to them do not bear interest. For economies of scale this is part of the contract for which refunds are made. I am not interested in w “(ANI)