the law stands today, the amendment covers all such offshore transactions.
The Parthasarathi Shome committee has voted against retrospective applicability of the law on indirect transfer of assets brought in through the Finance Act, 2012, but proposed some clarifications that would substantially reduce the irritant nature of the law, regardless of whether past cases remain within its domain. It said the government should apply the provision only to the taxpayer who earned capital gains (the seller) and suggested that no taxpayer in such cases be asked to pay interest and penalty on the tax computed.
The Sanofi case came up for hearing in the high court on Friday and law firm Economic Laws Practice appeared for the petitioners. Talking to FE, Rohit Jain, partner, Economic Laws Practice, said: “This is a good judgment and sets out the law as applicable by the Indo-French treaty which continues even after retrospective amendments. The deal is not taxable as per the Indo-French treaty.”
ShanH is an independent corporate entity, registered and resident in France. ShanH has commercial substance and a purpose and is not a nominee of Merieux Alliance, the law firms said. Since its inception in 2006, ShanH acquired and continues to hold shares in Shantha Biotechnics and there is no warrant to lift the corporate veil in the present circumstances.
According to the counsel, the transaction of the sale of shares of ShanH by the French company Sanofi is not a design for tax avoidance. The transaction is chargeable to tax in France, in terms of the provisions of the DTAA, and retrospective amendments to the Act have no impact on the DTAA.
Earlier also, giving a blow to the revenue authorities in their pursuit of taxing cross-border deals, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had dismissed the tax man’s plea against the Authority for Advanced Rulings (AAR) admission of Sanofi’s application regarding the Shantha Biotech deal. Sanofi had approached the AAR to determine the taxability of the deal. The AAR had concluded that the transaction was a preordained scheme to avoid tax in India and share transfer was taxable in India. Among other arguments, Sanofi