Centre notifies new Rules [Relaxation of Validation (Section 119 of the Finance Act, 2012) Rules, 2021; to settle the controversial retrospective tax case concerning Vodafone. INTRODUCTION Last year, Vodafone won an arbitration case against the Indian Government of amount worth Rs. 20,000 crores. There was this company Hutch. Vodafone in 2007 bought Hutch. There is a particular tax levied on the capital gain. Vodafone bought Hutch. Hutch got capital gain. Here Vodafone made payment to Hutch. Legally, Vodafone if is making payment to Hutch; Vodafone will have to hold its capital gain and pay rest to Hutch. Now here the capital gain tax; which was supposed to be paid to Government was Rs. 22,100 Crore; which was not put on hold. This matter went to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It held that the taxation put here is wrongful; as there was breach of the guarantee of fair and equitable treatment to the Vodafone. Background In May 2007, Vodafone had bought a 67% stake in Hutch for 11 billion dollars. Here Hutch is gaining capital gain. Here instead of Hutch; Vodafone is supposed to pay the tax. Vodafone contended that, Income Tax Act has no such provisions; and we are not liable to make the payment. Vodafone went to Bombay High Court; however, Bombay High Court ruled in the favour of Income Tax Department. Vodafone challenged it in the Supreme Court. Supreme Court overruled it and held that Vodafone Group’s interpretation of IT Act, is correct. This ruling was passed in the year 2012. The then finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee, circumvented the Supreme Court’s ruling. As Government was unhappy with the decision, it decided to amend the Finance Act retrospectively.  There was global backlash upon this decision. After much criticism, Government decided to proceed to amicably settle the dispute. It

Ahlawat & Associates’ transactional team has advised Revfin Services Private Limited, a start-up electric vehicles-focused financing company operating a digital lending platform providing financial assistance by partnering with various financial institutions on its Pre-Series A Investment round which was led by LetsVenture Angel Fund along with existing angel investors. The Delhi-based business platform focuses on consumer lending enabling financing of electric three-wheeler loans in Tier 3 and Tier 4 towns. The target consumer of the business is largely away from the traditionally focused hotspots such as Maharashtra, Karnataka, Hyderabad, and other states. The deal marks A&A’s latest advisory in relation to the investment raised by Revfin Services Private Limited. Partner, Uday Singh Ahlawat led the deal from Ahlawat & Associates’ team with support from Senior Associate, Disha Toshniwal, and Associate, Sarthak Chawla. “The promising sector of Finance technology (fintech) is growing at a rapid pace and there is a huge capital chasing a smaller number of start-ups engaged in this sector” Disha Toshniwal, (Senior Associate) Ahlawat & Associates The post Revfin Services Private Limited Raises Pre-Series A Investment appeared first on LexForti . Did you miss our previous article… https://www.itcse.org/?p=253 Randy Reidwww.itcse.org

The Apex Court, while setting aside the order of High Court, made an observation that an absconder or a proclaimed offender, against whom proceedings have been initiated, is not entitled to a relief of anticipatory bail. The procedural history of this case has its traces in Trial Court’s order which dismissed the anticipatory bail application on similar grounds. The trial court denied the anticipatory bail to accused as proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had already been issued. Thereafter, the accused approached the High Court which allowed the application. Aggrieved by the order of High Court, the state approached the apex court and placed reliance on the verdict of State of Madhya Pradesh v Pradeep Sharma. The counsel contended that the person, against whom proclamation has been issued and the proceedings under above mentioned sections have been initiated, does not stand entitled to the benefit of relief under anticipatory bail. The court accepted the contention of the counsel and noted that the High Court missed out on the facts which stated that the proceedings had already begun under Sections 82 and 83 of CrPC. The court allowed the appeal and observed that what matters the most is the nature of allegations and accusations, and not that the nature of accusation arising out of a business transaction. The post An absconder, against whom proceedings have been initiated, not entitled to anticipatory bail- SC appeared first on LexForti . Did you miss our previous article… https://www.itcse.org/?p=250 Randy Reidwww.itcse.org