Question Description
The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962. This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed - raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company. Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Consider the following assumptions.1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter.2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2d)Neither 1 nor 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962. This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed - raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company. Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Consider the following assumptions.1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter.2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2d)Neither 1 nor 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962. This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed - raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company. Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Consider the following assumptions.1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter.2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2d)Neither 1 nor 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962. This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed - raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company. Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Consider the following assumptions.1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter.2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2d)Neither 1 nor 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962. This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed - raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company. Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Consider the following assumptions.1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter.2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2d)Neither 1 nor 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962. This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed - raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company. Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Consider the following assumptions.1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter.2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2d)Neither 1 nor 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962. This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed - raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company. Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Consider the following assumptions.1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter.2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2d)Neither 1 nor 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962. This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed - raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company. Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Consider the following assumptions.1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter.2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2d)Neither 1 nor 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962. This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed - raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company. Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Consider the following assumptions.1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter.2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2d)Neither 1 nor 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.