Author Archive Vrind Jain

Applicability of Limitation Act to IBC 2016 in case of Continuing Debt NCLAT

Mack Soft Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Quinn Logistics India Ltd. [CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 143 of 2017]

In this matter, the appellant did not dispute that it had taken debt and did not repay. It, however, took the plea that the amount so paid was time barred.

The NCLAT observed that there is a continuous cause of action as evident from the books of account of the appellant and hence the application under

section 7 of the Code cannot be held to be barred by limitation.

Insolvency & Bankruptcy process against the personal guarantor can be filed under section 60 (2) before the same NCLT and not before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. NCLAT

State Bank of India Vs. D. S. Rajender Kumar [CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 87 to 91/2018]

The AA vide an order dated 23 January, 2018, did not allow the financial creditors to proceed against the personal guarantors till the moratorium

period came to an end. While disposing of the appeal against the said order, the NCLAT reiterated its decision in the matter of State Bank of India Vs. V.

Ramakrishnan & Ors. It, however, made clear that order of moratorium would be applicable only to the proceedings against the CD and the

personal guarantor, if pending before any court of law/tribunal or authority.

The order of moratorium will not be applicable for filing application for triggering CIRP under sections 7, 9 or 10 of the Code against the guarantor

or the personal guarantor under section 60 (2). If CIRP has been initiated against the CD, the insolvency and bankruptcy process against the personal

guarantor can be filed under section 60 (2) before the same NCLT and not before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Guideline For Acceptance & Rejection procedure of Resolution Plan under IBC 2016 By NCLTA

Rajputana Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. & Ors. [IA No. 594 of 2018 in CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 188 of 2018]

It was held that-

(a) While scrutinizing the resolution plan under section 30 (2), the RP cannot hold or decide as to who is ineligible under section 29A. Neither

section 30 (2) nor any other provision in the Code confers such power on the RP to scrutinize the eligibility of Resolution Applicants.

(b) As per section 30 (2), the RP is required to examine whether resolution plan confirms the provisions as mentioned therein but he cannot

disclose it to any other person, including resolution applicant(s), who has submitted the resolution plan. The resolution plan submitted by one

or other resolution applicant being confidential cannot be disclosed to any competitor Resolution Applicant nor any opinion can be taken or

objection can be called for from other resolution applicants with regard to one or other resolution plan.

(c) The RP is not only required to give notice of the meeting to the members of CoC, but also to the members of suspended Board of

Directors or partners of the corporate person, as the case may be. The OCs or their representatives are also to be informed to attend the

meeting of CoC, if the amount of the aggregate dues is not less than ten percent of the debt.

(d) The CoC, while approving or rejecting one or other resolution plan, should follow transparent procedure. It should record the reason in

brief while approving or rejecting one or other resolution plan. The members of suspended Board of Directors or its partners, OCs or

their representatives and resolution applicant(s) are not mere spectators. They may express their views in the meetings of the CoC.

Their views should be recorded and taken into consideration by the CoC before approving or rejecting one or other resolution plan.

The resolution applicant(s) are entitled to be present when the resolution plans are opened and placed before the CoC as per section 30 (5). At this

stage, they may point out whether one or other resolution applicant is ineligible in terms of section 29A or not.

Thin Capitalisation norms introduced Limitation of Interest deduction

Interest expenses claimed by an entity to its associated enterprises shall be restricted to 30% of its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) or interest paid or payable to associated enterprise, whichever is less.

The provision shall be applicable to an Indian company, or a permanent establishment of a foreign company being the borrower who pays interest in respect of any form of debt issued to a non-resident or to a permanent establishment of a non-resident and who is an ‘associated enterprise’ of the borrower. Further, the debt shall be deemed to be treated as issued by an associated enterprise where it provides an implicit or explicit guarantee to the lender or deposits a corresponding and matching amount of funds with the lender.

The provisions shall allow for carry forward of disallowed interest expense to eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the disallowance was first made and deduction against the income computed under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession to the extent of maximum allowable interest expenditure.
In order to target only large interest payments, it is proposed to provide for a threshold of interest expenditure of one crore rupees exceeding which the provision would be applicable.
It is further proposed to exclude Banks and Insurance business from the ambit of the said provisions keeping in view of special nature of these businesses.

Clarifications on implementation of GAAR provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961 Circular no. 7 0f 2017

The provisions of General Anti Avoidance Rule (GAAR) are contained in Chapter X-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The GAAR provisions shall be effective from assessment year 2018-19 onwards,
i.e. financial year 2017-18 onwards. CBDT Released 16 FAQ’s on GAAR.

Evonik Degussa India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD), Circle- 3 (1), Mumbai [2016] 76 taxmann.com 313 (Mumbai – Trib.)

1. Research and development services provider could not be compared to a company

2. Where segmental data relating to research operation of a company was not available, it could not be compared with assessee rendering research and development service.

3. Addition made by Assessing Officer on basis of order of TPO on account of interest on delay in realisation of dues from associate enterprises, was uncalled for as assessee had no interest liability and there was no interest cost to assessee

E-publisher isn’t comparable with design engineering service provider

January 4, 2017[2017] 77 taxmann.com 7 (Pune – Trib.)

Cabinet approves Agreement and the Protocol between India and Cyprus for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion

According to PBI 24/08/2016

 

India, today took another major step in the fight against tax evasion, “round tripping” and “base erosion/profit shifting”. The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has given its approval for signing of an Agreement and the Protocol between the India and Cyprus for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income.

This step follows the recent amendment of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Mauritius. As in the case of Mauritius, the treaty with Cyprus had provided for residence-based taxation of capital gains. With the revision of the treaty now approved by the Cabinet, capital gains will be taxed in India for entities resident in Cyprus, subject to double tax relief.

In other words, India will have the right to tax capital gains arising in India. The provisions in the earlier treaty for residence-based taxation were leading to distortion of financial and real investment flows by artificial diversion of various investments from their true countries of origin, for the sake of avoiding tax. As in the case of Mauritius, this amendment will deter such activities. Negotiations with Singapore are also underway for similar changes.