Tax Disputes Comparative Guide

1 Legal framework

1.1 Which laws govern taxation and tax disputes in your jurisdiction?

In India, there are two main types of taxes: direct and indirect. The primary law regulating direct taxation is the Income Tax Act of 1961. This comprehensive act levies taxes on individuals and corporations based on the income they generate. Under the Income Tax Act, individuals and companies are subject to taxes such as income tax, corporate tax and capital gains tax on the profits and gains derived from their economic activities.

Indirect taxes in India pertain to levies imposed on the consumption of goods and services. Several laws govern these taxes, including:

• the Central Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017 (CGST Act);
• the State Goods and Services Act of 2017 (SGST Act);
• the Integrated Goods and Services Act of 2017 (IGST Act); and
• the Customs Act of 1962.

The CGST Act levies taxes on transactions of goods and services, with the tax revenue accruing to the central government. Conversely, the SGST Act imposes taxes on the value of transactions of goods and services, with the tax revenue collected by the respective state governments. The IGST Act governs the taxation of interstate supplies of goods and services involving two or more states or union territories.

The Customs Act of 1962 establishes a framework for customs authorities to administer and enforce customs duties, tariffs and procedural guidelines.

This Q&A focuses on income tax and goods and services tax (GST).

1.2 Do any other regional, national or supranational rules or regulations have relevance in this regard?

Apart from major laws governing direct and indirect taxation as discussed in question 1.1, state governments levy:

• land revenue on land held within the state;
• stamp duty on the sale and purchase of property; and
• professional tax on individuals and entities carrying on a business or profession within a given state.

Land revenue and stamp duty may vary across different states and regions in India. Each state government has its own regulations on land revenue and stamp duty.

Municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats (village level body) may levy property tax, vehicle tax and similar. These taxes can vary from one region to another based on local needs and priorities.

Supranational rules: Section 90 of the Income Tax Act provides that the central government may enter into agreements with the governments of other countries for the grant of relief in respect of double taxation. Section 90(2) provides that where the central government has entered in such an agreement with another government for the avoidance of double taxation, in relation to an assessee to which such agreement applies, the provisions of the Income Tax Act will apply only to the extent that they are more beneficial to the assessee. In other words, if tax treaty provisions are more beneficial, they will prevail over the provisions contained in the Income Tax Act. India has entered into more than 90 comprehensive double tax agreements with different foreign governments.

India also has bilateral agreements with certain jurisdictions (eg, the United Kingdom) for the avoidance of double taxation regarding the duties on the estates of deceased persons.

1.3 Which authorities are responsible for enforcing the tax laws? What is their general approach to enforcement?

In India, the Department of Revenue exercises control with respect to matters relating to all direct and indirect union taxes through two statutory boards:

• the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which is responsible for levying and collecting direct taxes (eg, income tax, corporate tax and capital gains); and
• the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, which is responsible for levying and collecting customs and other indirect taxes.

At the assessee level, tax laws are enforced by:

• a jurisdictional assessing officer, who is an appropriate income tax officer appointed under the Income Tax Act; or
• an assessing officer under the Faceless Assessment Scheme.

The CGST Act and the Customs Act, 1962 are enforced by concerned officers under these acts.

These agencies conduct tax audits/assessments to validate the correctness of tax returns submitted by taxpayers. Further investigations are carried out in case of discrepancies that raise suspicion.

Income tax assessments now normally happen in faceless mode, following the introduction of the Faceless Assessment Scheme to expedite the process and ensure neutrality.

The GST Network has a specific focus on ensuring compliance with the GST regulations. The central government has also established the National Anti-profiteering Authority, whose function is to ensure that registered suppliers under the GST law are not profiteering by charging higher prices in the name of GST.

1.4 To what extent do the tax authorities cooperate with (a) other national authorities and (b) their international counterparts in enforcing the tax laws? Does this vary depending on the applicable tax?

National: The Income Tax Department and the GST authorities exchange data pertaining to issues such as:

• the filing of income tax returns;
• turnover;
• gross total income; and
• turnover ratio.

Such information is provided both:

• spontaneously, as may be decided by the relevant authority; and
• automatically, in line with defined guidelines.

The sharing of data by the IT Department is aimed at identifying mismatches between GST returns and income tax returns. In case of major discrepancies, the relevant business will come under heightened scrutiny.

Orders of a similar nature for the exchange of information are made between different tax authorities and other national authorities. For example, in case of a transaction pertaining to immovable property that exceeds the threshold value, the relevant sub-registrar has an obligation under the Registration Act, 1908 to report such a transaction via Form 61A. Further, various standing orders require:

• banks to report cash transactions exceeding a specific threshold value; and
• companies to report investments which are made by certain assessees in cash.

International: Most of the double tax avoidance agreements that the Indian government has entered into with other governments are based on the UN Model Convention and contain provisions, based on Article 26 of the convention, on the exchange of information that is foreseeable and relevant for:

• the implementation of the provisions of the relevant agreement; or
• the enforcement of the domestic laws of the parties to the relevant agreement.

Similarly, information is also exchanged under information exchange agreements which the Indian government has entered into with other governments (eg, the Marshall Islands).

2 Tax investigations

2.1 How do the tax authorities monitor compliance with the tax laws? Does this vary depending on the individual taxpayer or the applicable tax?

Tax investigations and audits aim to:

• uphold the tax laws;
• promote fairness in the tax system; and
• safeguard government revenue.

Taxpayers can mitigate the risk of a tax investigation by maintaining precise and transparent financial records.

Methods may vary based on:

• the scale of the taxpayer;
• the complexity of the situation; and
• the perceived compliance risk.

Both income tax and indirect tax authorities in India leverage cutting-edge technologies and standardised procedures to uphold tax compliance, thus fostering transparency and promoting the integrity of the taxation system.

Both individuals and businesses are mandated to submit income tax returns on an annual basis. The Income Tax Department then conducts meticulous investigations using advanced technologies such as data analytics, big data and artificial intelligence/machine learning to verify the accuracy of the information provided by taxpayers. Furthermore, taxpayers must link their permanent account number and Aadhar card to enable the tax authorities to track financial transactions effectively and verify income reporting.

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) utilises similar methods to monitor compliance with indirect taxes. Advanced Analytics in Indirect Taxes is one such initiative.

2.2 What typically triggers a tax investigation in your jurisdiction?

A suspicion of tax evasion is one of the main triggers of a tax investigation. Such suspicions may arise due to:

• inaccurate information on assets or income in the tax return;
• withholding tax discrepancies; or
• incorrect claims.

The tax authorities may detect inconsistencies in a taxpayer's reported income, expenses or assets, prompting doubts as to the accuracy of its tax payments.

Large numbers of cash transactions or significant assets disproportionate to income can also catch the attention of the tax authorities, potentially leading to further scrutiny. Such transactions might involve property acquisitions or investments that seem disproportionate to the taxpayer's declared income. Additionally, failure to disclose all sources of income is another common trigger of tax investigations.

Amongst other, the following may also trigger a tax investigation:

• mismatches in the income tax return and the goods and services tax (GST) return;
• large cash transactions exceeding the prescribed threshold for investment in any company or otherwise; and
• huge cash deposits exceeding the prescribed threshold, which banks, non-banking financial companies and other companies are obliged to report.

2.3 What is the limitation period for commencing a tax investigation in your jurisdiction?

The limitation period for initiating a tax investigation in India can vary depending on the specific provisions governing the investigation.

Under the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Department must issue a notice requiring the assessee to attend the office of the assessing officer or to produce any evidence on which the assessee seeks to rely, where the department considers this necessary to ensure that assessee has not understated income or computed excessive losses or similar, within three months of the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished.

For the conduct of an inquiry before issuing a notice for reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, a Notice 148 must be issued before:

• three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; or
• 10 years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year if the assessing officer has in his or her possession books of account or other documents revealing that:
• • income represented in the form of an asset, expenditure in respect of a transaction, an event or occasion or an entry or entries in the books has escaped assessment; and
  • the same amounts or is likely to amount to INR 5 million or more.

With regard to GST, the limitation period for initiating an investigation is regulated by Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act). The typical or standard limitation period for commencing a GST investigation is three years from the due date for filing the annual return corresponding to the relevant financial year. Where there are allegations of fraud, suppression of facts or wilful misstatement, the limitation period extends to five years from the due date for filing the annual return.

2.4 How does a tax investigation typically unfold in your jurisdiction?

Tax investigations are typically managed by the appropriate tax enforcement officers.

Generally, these investigations commence in response to various triggers, such as suspicious transactions or discrepancies in tax filings. Upon detecting potential tax violations, the tax authorities will gather relevant information and evidence pertaining to the taxpayer under assessment. This process involves examining:

• tax returns;
• financial statements;
• contracts;
• bank records; and
• any other documents necessary for the investigation.

The tax authorities may also:

• issue notices to the taxpayer explaining the reasons behind the investigation; and
• conduct interviews with the taxpayer, its representatives or other relevant individuals.

Concerned tax officers have powers of discovery and inspection and can:

• enforce the attendance of any person;
• compel the production of books of account and other documents; and
• issue commissions for the purpose of carrying out inquiries or investigations.

2.5 What is the typical timeframe for the investigation?

No timeframe is specified for the completion of investigations as such. Investigations are ultimately aimed at conducting a comprehensive assessment of income in order to identify, for example:

• misstatements or underreporting of income, turnover or similar; or
• claims for a greater amount of losses than actually incurred.

Indian law sets out a timeline for the issuance of notices for the initiation of inquiries and investigations, as highlighted in question 2.3.

Section 153 of the Income Tax Act sets out the timeframes for completion of assessments, reassessments and recomputations of income. Thus, while no timeframe is prescribed within which investigations and inquiries should be completed, timeframes are prescribed for:

• the initiation of inquiries and investigations; and
• the completion of assessments or reassessments at the end of such inquiries and investigations.

These timeframes must be observed.

Similarly, there are no specific provisions in the CGST Act dictating the timeframe or limitation period for the conclusion of tax investigations. However, Sections 73 and 74 impose limits on the commencement of investigations for tax evasion.

2.6 What powers do the tax authorities have in conducting their investigation, in relation to (a) the taxpayer itself, (b) its employees and (c) third parties?

The Indian tax authorities have a diverse array of powers granted to them under the relevant statutes (eg, the Income Tax Act and the CGST Act). A few examples are set out below.

Section 131 of the Income Tax Act empowers the assessing officer and various other officers/prescribed authorities under the act with the same powers as are vested in the courts under the Code of Civil Procedure for the purposes of the Income Tax Act in relation to the following:

• conducting discovery and inspections;
• enforcing the attendance of any person (including third parties), including any officer of a banking company, and examining such persons under oath;
• compelling the production of books of account and other documents; and
• issuing commissions.

Section 133A of the Income Tax Act empowers tax officers to enter various places as detailed therein and require the proprietor, any employee or any other person to furnish such information as may be required which may be relevant to the proceedings under the Income Tax Act.

Section 67 of the CGST Act empowers joint commissioners to conduct searches and seizures during investigations. Sections 70 and 71 grant joint commissioners the authority to:

• summon individuals for evidence or the production of documents;
• carry out inspections, searches and seizures; and
• issue notices to suspected violators of the CGST Act, including:
• • taxpayers;
  • their employees; and
  • third parties.

2.7 On what grounds, if any, can taxpayers refuse to disclose commercial information during the investigation?

Various provisions of the Income Tax Act and the CGST Act empowering tax authorities to seek information state that these powers are to be exercised by the authorities for the purposes of the concerned act, but provide nothing further in this regard. This has been interpreted through judicial pronouncements as meaning as follows:

• The notice/summons calling for the information must clearly state the purpose for which it is issued and the production of specific information or documents must be demanded through the notice.
• Sweeping inquiries are discouraged.
• The notice/summons must have been issued based on a reason or a belief that the information or documents being demanded are relevant to a tax investigation under the Income Tax Act.
• The notice/summons must:
• • comply with:
  • • the procedural safeguards set out under the relevant provisions; and
    • the provisions of natural justice; and
  • grant sufficient time to the concerned person to produce such information.

If the taxpayer finds that the demand for disclosure of the commercial information is not justified as the information being sought is not relevant and material for the purposes of the Income Tax Act or the CGST Act, or for any other reason, it can issue a suitable reply to the notice/summons indicating this.

If the tax authority does not withdraw its demand for the information/documents which, according to the taxpayer, are not relevant and material, the taxpayer can approach the writ court to challenge the notice/summons and seek a writ against the tax authority to have it quashed.

2.8 Can the taxpayer object to or challenge the tax investigation? Are any other avenues available for resolving the matter?

Yes, the taxpayer can challenge a tax investigation.

For example, the Income Tax Act specifies:

• timeframes for the initiation of inquiries and investigations for different purposes under the act; and
• the grounds on which such inquiries and investigations can be conducted in specific cases.

A taxpayer can challenge the conduct of an investigation on the grounds that:

• it was initiated outside the prescribed limitation period; or
• the grounds on which the investigation is being conducted are not as are prescribed under the Income Tax Act for such investigations.

2.9 What actions can the tax authorities take if the taxpayer does not cooperate in the investigation?

If a taxpayer fails to cooperate during a tax investigation, the tax authorities can take several actions to compel cooperation. For example, under the Income Tax Act, Section 131 allows the tax authorities to:

• issue a summons to ensure the attendance of the taxpayer or others; and
• demand the production of documents or evidence.

Failure to comply with a summons can lead to more serious measures. For instance, under Section 132, tax authorities can conduct a search and seizure to gather necessary evidence.

Non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1) or 143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 can result in penalties under Section 271(1)(b). Additionally, wilful failure to adhere to such notices can lead to harsher consequences, including imprisonment for up to one year and fines under Section 276D. Non-compliance with certain notices can potentially result in a 'best judgement' assessment by the income tax officer, incurring heavy financial liabilities.

Similarly, under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), failure to cooperate in an investigation can have legal consequences. The tax authorities can exercise their power under Section 67 to conduct inspections, searches and seizures of relevant goods, documents and other items.

2.10 Can the tax authorities exercise discretion in their treatment of the taxpayer in exceptional circumstances (eg, insolvency)?

No answer submitted for this question.

2.11 Do tax authorities have any leeway to settle in the course of tax investigations?

Section 245A of the Income Tax Act pertains to the settlement of a 'case'. In this context, a 'case' is any proceeding for assessment under the Income Tax Act which is pending before an assessing officer on the date of an application under Section 245C. Proceedings involving reassessment, appeals and similar do not fall within the ambit of the term 'case' and are not eligible for settlement.

Under Section 245C, an assessee can make an application to the Settlement Commission setting out:

• a full and true disclosure of income which was not previously disclosed to the assessing officer;
• the manner in which such income was derived; and
• other prescribed particulars.

After hearing the authorities/officers under the Income Tax Act and the assessee, the Settlement Commission will pass an order providing for the terms of the settlement, including:

• any demand by way of income tax, penalty or similar; and
• the manner in which the sum due under the settlement must be paid.

The settlement will be void if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that the assessee has misrepresented the facts.

For international businesses operating in the Indian market, in case of a dispute pertaining to transfer pricing, apart from the regular mechanisms of appeal, it is also possible for an eligible assessee – as defined under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act – to approach the Dispute Resolution Panel under Section 144C to resolve disputes relating to transfer pricing and international transactions.

2.12 If the investigation concludes that taxes are overdue, what powers do the tax authorities have to collect them? Does this vary depending on the applicable tax?

If the tax authorities find that tax is overdue after the conclusion of their investigation, it will be followed by assessment or reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act. The assessee will be afforded ample opportunity to present its position in fact as well as in law. If the Income Tax Department finds, at the end of the assessment or reassessment proceedings, that tax is overdue, it has various powers to collect the overdue tax, which vary depending on the specific tax laws. Under Sections 220 to 227 of the Income Tax Act, tax authorities can utilise methods such as:

• property attachment;
• tax recovery proceedings;
• adjustment against any pending refunds owed to the taxpayer; and
• garnishee orders.

Similarly, the CGST Act sets out specific mechanisms for tax collection. Section 79 empowers the tax authorities to recover tax due in land revenue, allowing tax officials to employ tactics such as:

• property and bank account attachment; and
• the appointment of a collector for recovery purposes.

2.13 On what grounds are penalties imposed and how are these calculated?

There are several grounds on which penalties are imposed and calculated. The calculation and imposition of penalties vary according to:

• the applicable provisions; and
• the gravity of the offence.

Penalties under the Income Tax Act are imposed for various offences committed by the taxpayer. These penalties, distinct from the tax owed, are determined in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the offence. For instance, under Section 158BFA of the Income Tax Act, undisclosed income during a search or requisition can incur a penalty ranging from 100% to 300% of the tax payable. Similarly, Section 221(1) stipulates penalties for defaulting on tax payments, which are set by the assessing officer but capped at the outstanding tax amount.

Penalties under the CGST Act are imposed for violations such as:

• non-payment of tax;
• incorrect input of tax credit claims;
• failure to issue invoices; and
• non-filing of returns.

For instance, the penalties for non-payment or underpayment of tax, as per Sections 73 and 74, can be up to 10% of the tax amount involved or INR 10,000. Similarly, the penalties for the incorrect input of tax credit claims under Section 74 can amount to 10% of the ineligible credit or INR 10,000, whichever is higher. Under Section 122, penalties of up to INR 25,000 are levied for failure to issue tax invoices or documents as required under the CGST Act.

2.14 On what grounds is interest levied and how is this calculated?

Interest is imposed for various reasons and according to distinct calculation methods. Several provisions aim to ensure compliance with tax payment timelines, discouraging delays and promoting the fulfilment of tax obligations.

Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act provide for the levying of interest due to taxpayer errors, with rates determined by the government. Section 234A addresses failure to pay taxes by due dates, resulting in monthly interest at 1% of the outstanding tax. Under Section 208, if a taxpayer fails to pay the stipulated advance tax percentage by specified dates, interest at 1% per month is levied for three months on the shortfall.

Under the CGST Act, interest is also charged for delayed tax payments. Under Section 50, interest is calculated on the unpaid tax amount from the due date until payment, at a rate which is currently set at 18% per annum.

2.15 What defences are typically available to the taxpayer?

Generally speaking, additional tax liability under the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of rejection of the assessee's explanation is not in itself sufficient for the imposition of a penalty. Incorrect claim or insufficiency of evidence to support a claim of tax deduction for example must not warrant imposition of penalty. What is required for imposition of penalty is deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), similar principles apply regarding penalties and the imposition of tax liability.

In essence, both the Income Tax Act and the CGST Act emphasise that penalties are not automatically levied based solely on the rejection of the assessee's explanations or additional tax liabilities. There must be evidence of deliberate misconduct or inaccurate particulars furnished by the taxpayer to justify the imposition of a penalty.

If a penalty is nonetheless imposed by the Income Tax Department, the assessee can challenge the same on various additional grounds, such as the following:

• The show cause notice for imposition of the penalty was not proper;
• The show cause notice did not contain a specific charge expressly stating the precise violation for which the penalty was sought to be imposed;
• There was no proper opportunity for a hearing; or
• The quantum of the penalty is disproportionate.

2.16 Can the results of the tax investigation have criminal implications for the taxpayer? Does this vary depending on the individual taxpayer?

In certain circumstances, the outcome of a tax investigation can have criminal ramifications for the taxpayer.

Under Chapter 22 of the Income Tax Act, breaches of certain clauses or offences are deemed to have criminal implications, potentially leading to fines or incarceration. For instance, Sections 276C, 276CC and 277 delineate offences associated with the following which could culminate in criminal proceedings:

• tax evasion;
• deliberate attempts to avoid taxes; and
• the falsification of financial records.

Additionally, Section 276B addresses failure to remit tax deductions at source, which may also trigger the criminal liability of taxpayers.

Under the CGST Act, violations or offences such as the following may also have criminal repercussions:

• purposeful tax evasion;
• fraudulent invoice issuance; and
• the deliberate concealment of sales.

Sections 122, 132 and 132A, among others, specify various offences and penalties, including potential imprisonment and fines, contingent upon the gravity of the violation.

2.17 If the tax investigation has criminal implications for the taxpayer, are the answers to any of the above questions different?

No. However, the criminal implications are not automatic and where the outcome of an investigation may have criminal implications, this will only result in triggering a prosecution, which may be initiated at the discretion of:

• an officer under the Income Tax Act in accordance with the guidelines of the Central Board of Direct Taxes guidelines; or
• an officer under the CGST Act in accordance with the guidelines of the CBIC.

The prosecution will be heard by the competent criminal court. The accused assessee will have such additional defences as are available in a criminal trial; and punishment is not automatic until the assessee is found guilty by a criminal court based on the principles of criminal jurisprudence.

3 Voluntary disclosure and amnesties

3.1 Are any voluntary disclosure or amnesty programmes applicable in your jurisdiction? Does this vary depending on the applicable tax?

The Central Board of Direct Tax and the Central Board of Indirect Tax, guided by the Ministry of Finance, have been empowered to issue different schemes and programmes from time to time to encourage taxpayers to voluntarily disclose undisclosed income or tax liabilities and regularise their tax affairs, in order to avoid severe penalties or prosecution and schemes. For example, in 2016, the Income Declaration Scheme was introduced allowing taxpayers to declare undisclosed income and assets. Tax, surcharges and penalties totalling 45% of the declared income were payable. An amnesty scheme was also introduced for goods and services tax (GST) as well,which remained in effect until 31 January 2024.

4 Forum for tax disputes

4.1 In what forum(s) are tax disputes heard in your jurisdiction? Is there any choice of forum available?

Under the Income Tax Act 1961, taxpayers can appeal to:

• the commissioner of income tax (appeals) in order to challenge an order passed by an assessing officer; and
• the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against orders issued by the commissioner of income tax (appeals).

High courts and the Supreme Court can decide on further appeals involving substantive legal issues under Sections 260A and 261, respectively.

Under Section 245B, the Settlement Commission also offers a venue for the amicable resolution of disputes (Please refer to answer to question 2.11)).

Similarly, under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), taxpayers can appeal to the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal against orders of the commissioner (appeals) or the Adjudicating Authority. High courts and the Supreme Court handle appeals involving significant legal issues under Sections 117 and 118, respectively. Advance rulings can be obtained from the Authority for Advance Rulings under Section 97. These forums provide taxpayers with diverse options for the effective resolution of tax disputes.

4.2 Who is the fact finder in a tax dispute? Does this change based on venue?

The fact finder in a tax dispute under the Income Tax Act is:

• the jurisdictional assessing officer of a given assessee; or
• the 'specified officer' under the Faceless Assessment Scheme.

These officers conclude assessment proceedings based on an inquiry on the facts and an appreciation of the evidence. The scope of appeal before the commissioner of income tax (appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerns whether:

• the facts have been appreciated correctly; and
• the applicable law has been properly applied.

Appeals to the high courts and the Supreme Court of India may be brought on a question of law only.

The fact-finding and assessment under the CGST Act are done by the 'proper officer' as defined under CGST Act – that is, the commissioner or an officer who is assigned that function by the commissioner of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The scope of appeal is similar to that for income tax appeals.

5 Filing a tax dispute

5.1 What is the limitation period for filing a tax dispute in your jurisdiction?

The limitation period for filing a tax dispute varies based on factors such as:

• the nature of the dispute; and
• the forum in which it is being pursued.

For instance, under the Income Tax Act, appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal must typically be lodged within 60 days of receipt of the assessment order, as indicated in Section 253. Subsequent appeals to the high court are subject to a limitation period of 120 days from receipt of the order, as outlined in Section 260A.

Regarding tax disputes under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), the limitation period for filing appeals is also contingent upon the forum and the nature of the dispute. When appealing an order of the Adjudicating Authority to the commissioner (appeals), the limitation period is three months from the date of receipt of the order, under Section 107(1). Similarly, appeals to the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal are subject to a limitation period of three months from receipt of the order or decision, as specified in Section 112(1). Appeals to the high court under Section 117 must be filed within 180 days of receipt of the order.

5.2 What are the formal requirements for filing a tax dispute?

The filing of a tax dispute requires adherence to the formal requirements outlined in the Income Tax Act and the CGST Act.

Under the Income Tax Act, a taxpayer must typically submit a formal appeal to the appropriate appellate authority within the specified timeframe, accompanied by relevant documentation and the grounds for challenging the tax assessment or decision. Section 246 of the Income Tax Act 1961 delineates the grounds on which a taxpayer can appeal a tax assessment or decision. These grounds encompass various aspects, including:

• the computation of income;
• deductions;
• exemptions; and
• any other substantive question of law or fact,

Section 249 specifies the timeframe within which a taxpayer must file an appeal with the appropriate appellate authority.

The requirements for the resolution of disputes relating to transfer pricing and similar through the Dispute Resolution Panel are set out in Section 144C.

Similarly, under the CGST Act, a taxpayer must adhere to formal procedures when challenging a tax assessment. This involves filing an appeal with the Appellate Adjudicating Authority within the prescribed timeframe, as specified in Section 107. The appeal must include supporting documentation and legal arguments challenging the tax assessment. Adherence to these formal requirements is crucial to ensure the effectiveness and validity of the tax dispute resolution process under both acts.

5.3 What are the procedural and substantive requirements for filing a tax dispute?

The procedural and substantive requirements for filing a tax dispute are set out in question 5.2.

5.4 Is there any possibility for collective proceedings (eg, involving several taxpayers or multiple tax assessments)?

Under the CGST Act, there is no scope for collective proceedings.

Although not a collective proceeding in a strict sense, something similar to a collective proceeding can be triggered under the Income Tax Act by virtue of a search and seizure action under Section 132, where specified officers have reason to believe, based on information in their possession, that any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable items that represent – wholly or partly – income or property which has not been or would not be disclosed for the purposes of the Income Tax Act.

Upon a search and seizure action, the assessing officer must issue a notice to such person in accordance with Section 153A requiring the provision of returns of income for each of the six assessment years immediately preceding that in which the search was conducted or the requisition was made.

If the assessing officer is satisfied that any items, books of account or documents seized or requisitioned under Section 132 or 132A relate to a third party, he or she can can issue a notice and assess or reassess the income of that third party for the six assessment years immediately preceding that in which the search was conducted and requisition was made under Section 153C.

5.5 Must the sum in contention be paid into court before a tax dispute is filed?

Under the Income Tax Act, there is normally no requirement for the disputed sum to be deposited in advance before a tax dispute is filed. However:

• the tax due on the assessee's return must have been paid under Section 249(4)(a); or
• if no return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee must have paid an amount equal to the advance tax to which it is subject.

Under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, however, a person appealing an order must deposit a sum equal to 10% of the disputed amount at the time of filing the appeal.

Section 107(6)(b) provides that when calculating this amount, fees, interest and penalties are not included.

5.6 Has the filing of a tax dispute any effect on the payment of tax or the collection possibilities for the authorities?

The filing of an appeal does not result in an automatic stay against the collection of taxes; instead, a stay application must be filed.

Modified Instruction 1914/1996 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) provides that the payment that must be made by the assessee as a precondition for a stay is 20% of the disputed amount.

Many assume that this precondition is absolute, but this is incorrect. The instruction simply refers to the powers of the assessing officer to grant a stay until the disposal of first appeal before the commissioner of income tax (appeals). It does not specify the conditions under which the commissioner may grant a stay.

The powers of assessing officers are limited and only the factors prescribed in the circulars of the CBDT may be considered by assessing officers (eg, whether addition in a similarly placed matter, on similar legal or factual issue has been deleted by appellate authorities or superior courts). By contrast, the powers of the commissioner of income tax (appeals) are not restricted by any circulars and he is free to consider all factors that may be relevant for the grant of a stay – for example:

• a strong and prima facie case, whether in law or in fact;
• irreparable injury;
• any special circumstances; and
• any other relevant factors.

The commissioner of income tax (appeals) and other appellate authorities have the power to grant a stay without any deposit.

5.7 If the tax dispute is decided in favour of the authorities, is late interest due if the tax has not been settled? If the tax dispute is decided in favour of the taxpayer and the tax had already been settled, is interest due by the state?

In tax disputes governed by the Income Tax Act and the CGST Act, the outcome will dictate the treatment of interest, contingent upon the tax liability settlement status.

If the tax authorities prevail and the tax remains unsettled, the taxpayer may be charged interest if the overdue tax is not paid post resolution. In this instance, specified in Section 220 of the Income Tax Act and Section 50 of the CGST Act, interest will be charged on the outstanding tax amount.

If the dispute is resolved in favour of the taxpayer, the state may be liable to compensate the taxpayer with interest on any excess tax refunded. Provisions such as Section 244A of the Income Tax Act and Section 56 of the CGST Act govern such instances, ensuring fair treatment.

6 Disclosure and privilege

6.1 What rules apply to disclosure in your jurisdiction? Do any exceptions apply?

The basic disclosure requirement under the Income Tax Act 1961 – which applies to all companies and firms and all persons other than companies or firms whose total income exceeds the maximum amount that is not chargeable to taxes – requires the submission of a return of income under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, providing comprehensive details of:

• income;
• deductions;
• expenses; and
• various other financial particulars.

Additionally, Section 285BA provides that any assessee and other persons (eg, a registrar or sub-register appointed under the Registration Act 1908, a registration authority empowered to register motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act and various other prescribed persons) must report the following financial transactions:

• transactions involving the purchase, sale or exchange of goods or property or a right or interest in a property;
• transactions for rendering any service;
• transactions under a works contract; and
• transactions through which an investment is made or an expenditure is incurred, or which involve the issue or acceptance of any loan or deposit that exceeds a certain value as prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

Similarly, Section 37 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act) requires registered taxpayers to disclose their goods and services tax (GST) liabilities, input tax credits and relevant financial information through regular filings. Additionally, Section 68 empowers tax authorities to request information or documents for GST-related purposes.

6.2 What rules on third-party disclosure apply in your jurisdiction?

Normally, the assessee must provide all information relating to its own affairs under the Income Tax Act. However, under Section 285A, if any share or interest in a company or entity registered or incorporated outside India substantially derives its value – directly or indirectly – from assets located in India, as referenced in Section 9(1), Explanation 5(2)(I), and such company or entity holds such assets in India through an Indian concern, that Indian concern must provide all information and documents relating to the same as are prescribed under Rule 114DB within the period specified by that rule.

Furthermore, Section 286 of the Income Tax Act provides that a constituent entity of international group that is resident in India, but whose parent is not resident in India, must provide:

• details of whether it is an alternate reporting entity of the international group; or
• the details of the parent entity or alternate reporting entity, if any, of the international group.

Every parent entity or alternate reporting entity must furnish a report to the prescribed authority containing aggregate information with regard to:

• the amount of revenue, profit or loss before income tax;
• the amount of income tax paid;
• accrued capital;
• accumulated earnings; and
• the nature and details of main business activities of each constituent entity.

6.3 What rules on privilege apply in your jurisdiction?

There is no separate set of rules under the Income Tax Act or the CGST Act relating to privilege.

Privileged communications are governed by Section 156 of the Evidence Act, which provides that an advocate must not disclose, without the client's consent:

• any communications with the client;
• the content and conditions of any documentation; and
• the advice given to the client.

These rules are subject to specified exceptions as stipulated in Section 156. The rules on privilege also apply to interpreters, clerks, servants of advocates/pleaders/attorneys and similar.

7 Evidence

7.1 What types of evidence are permissible in tax disputes in your jurisdiction? Is expert evidence accepted?

In India, the provisions of the Evidence Act determine whether a piece of evidence is relevant and admissible in judicial proceedings.

The assessing officers and tax tribunals are quasi-judicial authorities that conduct quasi-judicial proceedings; and while certain provisions of the Evidence Act are made explicitly applicable by reference to them in different sections of the Income Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), the rules of evidence and the provisions of the Evidence Act do not have strict application to proceedings under the Income Tax Act or the CGST Act.

As held by the Supreme Court of India in ChuharmanS/O Takarmal Mohnani v Commissioner of Income Tax [(1988) 172 ITR 250], the rigours of the rules of evidence set out in the Evidence Act do not apply to proceedings under the Income Tax Act. Nonetheless, the principles set out in the Evidence Act 1872 and the rules appealing to common sense should be applied in proceedings under the Income Tax Act.

Thus, proceedings related to income tax and goods and services tax should generally be governed by the rules of evidence set out in the Evidence Act, although not all of the technicalities specified in the act will apply. For example, the inadmissibility of electronic evidence without strict compliance with the conditions set out in Section 65B of the Evidence Act may not apply to proceedings under the Income Tax Act or the CGST Act.

7.2 What is the applicable standard of proof?

As confirmed by the Supreme Court in various judgments, the tax law does not set out any quantitative test to determine whether the onus in a particular case has been discharged; this will invariably depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities or a preponderance of probabilities, as enunciated in Commissioner of Income Tax v Durga Prasad [(1971) 82 ITR 540 SC].

The standard of proof relating to specific situations set out in law has evolved through judicial pronouncements.

For example, Section 68 of the Income Tax Act provides that:

• an unexplained cash credit constitutes income and an explanation of the cash credit should be provided by the assessee by proving the identity of the individual or corporate creditor (eg, through a permanent account number card, an Aadhar card, bank particulars or a certificate of incorporation);
• the creditworthiness of a lender can be demonstrated by submitting a statement of assets and liabilities showing adequate worth along with bank statements and similar; and
• the genuine nature of a transaction can be demonstrated by submitting details on aspects such as:
• • security arrangements for lending;
  • payment of interest; and
  • enforcement of the debt.

Different standards for different situations have evolved through judicial pronouncements – for example:

• Section 69A, dealing with unexplained money, bullion, jewellery and similar; and
• Section 37(1), regarding claiming expenditure against income and so on.

7.3 On whom does the burden of proof rest?

The burden of proof rests with the person that asserts a proposition, not with the person that denies it.

The burden of proof in proceedings relating to income tax and goods and services tax is determined by the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act and the CGST Act, respectively. As a broad principle, it is incumbent on the tax authorities to show that a receipt constitutes income which is liable to tax. In contrast, the burden of proving a claim that any particular income is exempt from taxation rests with the assessee.

Similarly, the burden of proving that a transaction is a sham rests with the tax authorities, unless it is transferred to the assessee under the general anti-avoidance rules set out in Sections 95-102 of the Income Tax Act. The initial burden of proving the concealment of income likewise rests with the tax authorities.

The burden of proving that a particular item of income is exempt under Section 10 rests with the assessee, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v Ramakrishna Deo [1959] 35 ITR 312 (SC)]

8 Proceedings

8.1 Are tax proceedings in your jurisdiction public or private? If the former, are any options available to the parties to keep the proceedings or related information confidential?

Tax proceedings before assessing officers and appeals before the commissioner of income tax (appeals) are always a matter between the assessee and the tax authorities and are de facto confidential.

However, if an appeal is carried forward to public forums (eg, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the high courts or the Supreme Court), the proceedings will be public. Hearings are accessible to the public if they so desire. The judgments and orders issued in such proceedings are uploaded online; and even the case papers can be obtained by applying for a certified copy thereof.

8.2 How do the proceedings unfold in your jurisdiction?

Tax proceedings in India follow a structured process outlined in the Income Tax Act 1961 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act). Under the Income Tax Act, proceedings typically start with the taxpayer filing a tax return under Section 139. The tax authorities may then conduct assessments, audits or investigations to verify the accuracy of the information provided. Sections 143 and 147 deal with assessments and reassessments. Appeals against assessment orders can be made to:

• the commissioner of income tax (appeals) under Section 246;
• the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 253; and
• the high court and the Supreme Court under Sections 260A and 261, respectively.

Similarly, under the CGST Act, proceedings begin with taxpayers filing goods and services tax (GST) returns as per Section 39. The tax authorities may then conduct audits, investigations or assessments to ensure compliance with GST laws. Sections 73 and 74 outline the procedure for determining tax liability and imposing penalties for non-compliance. Appeals against orders under the CGST Act can be made to:

• the Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings under Section 99;
• the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 112; and
• the high court and Supreme Court under Sections 117 and 118, respectively.

Throughout the proceedings, the taxpayer has the opportunity to:

• present its case;
• respond to allegations; and
• appeal adverse decisions before higher levels of authority.

The procedural requirements and timelines are set out in the respective sections of the Income Tax Act and the CGST Act, ensuring transparency and due process in tax matters.

8.3 What is the typical timeframe for proceedings?

The limitation periods for initiating proceedings under the Income Tax Act and the CGST Act and the timeframes for such proceedings are set out in questions 2.3 and 2.5.

8.4 Are settlements possible between the taxpayer and the tax authorities once judicial proceedings have been opened?

Under the Indian tax regime, it is not possible for the taxpayer and the tax authorities to reach a settlement once judicial proceedings have been initiated (see also question 2.14).

8.5 Do the courts in your jurisdiction have full power to review facts and legal questions?

Under the Income Tax Act, the high courts and the Supreme Court have the authority to review questions of law only. Section 260A of the Income Tax Act provides that the taxpayer or the commissioner of income tax can appeal orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the high courts on substantive questions of law.

Similarly, under the CGST Act, courts – including the high courts and the Supreme Court – have the power to review legal questions. Appeals against orders passed under the CGST Act can be made to the appropriate high court or the Supreme Court under Sections 117 and 118 of the CGST Act.

While the courts have no power to review facts concerning assessment processes per se, if the courts find any factual finding to be perverse (ie, totally unsupported by or contrary to the material on record), this in itself gives rise to a question of law. In other words, the court will not substitute its own opinion on the facts if two views are equally possible, but will reverse a finding of fact if it is perverse.

While appeals in assessment proceedings must be founded on questions of law, there are several other issues that high courts can consider on the facts in writ proceedings – for example:

• whether an action for search and seizure was justified on the facts; and
• whether the grant or refusal of a stay order against a disputed demand was justified on the facts.

9 Remedies

9.1 What remedies are available in tax disputes in your jurisdiction?

In India, taxpayers can explore various avenues for the resolution of tax disputes. For example, under the Income Tax Act 1961, taxpayers can:

• rectify errors in assessments through Section 154;
• challenge decisions of an assessing officer decisions through an appeal to the commissioner of income tax (appeals) under Section 246; or
• avail of a dispute resolution panel under Section 144C.

Further recourse includes:

• appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 253;
• potential escalation to the high court under Section 260A; and
• a final appeal to the Supreme Court in case of significant legal questions.

Similarly, under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, taxpayers can:

• seek rectification under Section 161;
• appeal to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 107; and
• proceed to the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 112.

Should the need arise, appeals against the tribunal's decisions can be directed to:

• the high court under Section 117; and
• subsequently the Supreme Court under Section 118.

Additionally, the proper officer (see question 4.2) retains the authority to revise orders under Section 108 in cases of evident errors.

These provisions offer taxpayers a structured framework to navigate tax disputes effectively, ensuring adherence to legal processes and avenues for fair resolution.

9.2 What factors will the court consider in deciding on the appropriate remedies?

The relevant court or tribunal will consider:

• legality and procedural compliance;
• substantive legal issues;
• evidence and documentation; and
• adherence to the principles of natural justice.

The courts may:

• assess whether tax assessments and proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the applicable laws;
• interpret and apply the tax laws;
• evaluate the evidence presented by both parties; and
• ensure that the principles of natural justice are upheld throughout the proceedings.

10 Appeals

10.1 Can the decision of the court be appealed? If so, on what grounds and what is the process?

Under both the Income Tax Act 1961 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), parties that are dissatisfied with the decisions of courts or tribunals in tax matters have the option to appeal. Under the Income Tax Act, if a party is unhappy with the outcome before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it can escalate the matter by appealing to the high court and subsequently to the Supreme Court. These appeals typically revolve around substantive questions of law rather than factual disputes, as delineated under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.

Similarly, under the CGST Act, parties can challenge decisions of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal by appealing to the high court and subsequently to the Supreme Court. Appeals in both instances primarily focus on legal issues or jurisdictional questions, as outlined in Sections 117 and 118. The appeal process involves submitting a formal appeal petition within the specified timeframe, accompanied by supporting documentation and legal arguments. The appellate authorities will review the merits of the case and may affirm, modify or reverse the decision based on the applicable legal principles.

It is imperative to adhere to the procedural requirements and deadlines outlined in the respective acts – such as Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 and Sections 117 and 118 of the CGST Act – to ensure the efficacy of the appeal process.

11 Costs, fees and funding

11.1 What costs and fees are incurred in tax disputes in your jurisdiction? Can the winning party recover its costs?

In tax disputes, there are no settled principles that mandate the recovery of the actual costs by the winning party from the losing party. The courts have discretion to award costs to either party, which are not necessarily equivalent to the costs incurred in prosecuting or defending the litigation. The typical costs involved in tax disputes include:

• the fees for lodging an application with the appropriate authorities; and
• the fees of legal practitioners to represent the parties in the tax dispute.

11.2 Are contingency fees and similar arrangements permitted in your jurisdiction?

Lawyers practising in India are not permitted to engage in contingency fee arrangements under the rules established by the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India Advocates Act, 1961 and the rules framed thereunder govern the professional conduct and ethics of advocates practising in India. These rules typically prohibit lawyers from charging fees that are contingent on the outcome of a case.

11.3 Is third-party funding permitted in your jurisdiction?

There are no specific regulations addressing third-party funding in India. Although this is not strictly prohibited, an understanding of the practice can be derived from past legal cases and judicial remarks.

An observation made by the Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v AK Balaji (2018) highlighted the absence of an explicit prohibition on third-party funding by non-lawyers in India. While advocates in India are generally restricted from funding litigation on behalf of their clients, there are no restrictions on third parties funding litigation and seeking repayment after the outcome.

12 International tax disputes

12.1 What is your jurisdiction's position on the resolution of international tax disputes (eg, advance pricing agreements, mutual agreement procedures, arbitrations)?

Advance pricing agreements (APAs): Sections 92CC-92D of the Income Tax Act 1961 empower the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to implement advance pricing agreements (APAs). Rules 10F-10T of the Income Tax Rules outline the procedure for the implementation of APAs. Rule 44GA outlines the process for negotiating APAs involving multiple tax jurisdictions.

The APA process begins with a pre-filing consultation, followed by the submission of an APA application and its acceptance or rejection after preliminary processing. Thereafter, it goes through various steps, such as:

• assignment of the application to the APA Department;
• examination and analysis of the application; and
• conversion of a unilateral APA into a bilateral APA and negotiation on the same by the competent authority.

after the APA department is prevented from challenging the Arms Length Price or application of Transfer Pricing Method to covered transactions.

Mutual assistance procedure (MAP): Most of the double tax avoidance agreements to which India is a signatory contain provisions on the MAP based on Article 25 of the OECD Model Convention on Income and Capital.

The CBDT has issued a guidance note outlining the situations in which the MAP can be accessed. The MAP covers disputes relating to:

• transfer pricing adjustments;
• the characterisation of an expense or receipt as a taxable expense or taxable income if it results in taxation that does not accord with a double tax avoidance agreement; or
• the existence of a permanent establishment and the attribution of profit thereto.

However, the Indian tax authorities will not take a position that is contrary to or deviates from an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in a cross-border tax dispute that may be undergoing simultaneous resolution through the MAP, as the ITAT is the highest fact-finding statutory appellate body and is outside the administrative jurisdiction of the Income Tax Department.

12.2 Has your jurisdiction implemented the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) minimum standards with respect to international tax dispute resolution or is it a party to other agreements in this respect?

India has implemented certain elements of the OECD minimum standards regarding international tax dispute resolution, with a particular focus on areas such as transfer pricing and the exchange of information. Additionally, India has ratified various bilateral tax treaties, including double tax avoidance agreements, which often incorporate provisions on dispute resolution mechanisms.

India has taken steps to enhance its tax dispute resolution mechanisms through participation in the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. It has adopted the BEPS Action 14 Minimum Standard, which aims to improve the resolution of tax-related disputes across jurisdictions.

On 7 June 2017, India also became a party to the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty-Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, which allows for the modification of existing treaties to incorporate BEPS.

12.3 Does your jurisdiction's position differ significantly from Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention (including commentary)? If so, in what respects?

India's position differs from Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention in certain respects, as follows:

• While India has signed treaties based on Article 25, in relation to Paragraph 25 of the OECD commentary, India takes the view that competent authorities can reach agreement under Article 25 while a domestic law action is pending; however, the taxpayer has option to accept or reject the resolution order and if it accepts the resolution, it must withdraw the domestic law action.
• India further does not agree with the view expressed in Paragraph 42 that the taxpayer may be permitted to defer acceptance of the solution agreed as a result of the MAP until the court has delivered its judgment in that suit.
• India does not accept the interpretation given in Paragraph 14, as it does not agree with the view that the MAP can be initiated where taxation appears as a risk which is probable and India considers that it can be initiated only where taxation appears as a risk which is certain.

India has further taken the position that access to the MAP can be denied in certain cases and does not agree that all circumstances in which state would deny access to the mutual agreement procedure must be made clear in the Convention. It is of the view that the wording of Article 25 would permit access to the mutual agreement procedure to be denied in respect of certain cases.

12.4 How do domestic and international tax dispute resolution mechanisms interplay in your jurisdiction?

No answer submitted for this question.

13 Trends and predictions

13.1 How would you describe the current tax dispute landscape and prevailing trends in your jurisdiction? Are any new developments anticipated in the next 12 months, including any proposed legislative reforms?

The indirect taxation regime received a significant overhaul in 2017 through the introduction of goods and service tax, which replaced central and state indirect taxes such as value added tax, excise duty and service tax.

Apart from routine changes introduced through the budget, the direct taxation regime saw more significant changes in 2016 with the introduction of the equalisation levy, which applies to online advertising and the use of the digital advertising space. In April 2020, the Indian government expanded the scope of the equalisation levy with the addition of Section 165A to the Finance Act, 2020, which requires non-resident e-commerce operators that provide supplies or services to people resident in India to pay the equalisation levy at a rate of 2%.

No major revisions to the tax regime are expected in the coming year. However, further expansion in the scope of the equalisation levy and streamlining of the guidelines may be expected. Otherwise, the government is expected to continue introducing industry-specific incentives to promote particular sectors in India (eg, semiconductors).

14 Tips and traps

14.1 What would be your recommendations to parties facing a tax dispute in your jurisdiction and what potential pitfalls would you highlight?

Our top tips are as follows:

• Treat every communication from the Income Tax Department with the utmost seriousness and ensure that all such communications receive a reply.
• Indian tax laws are complex. Always consult an experienced professional before taking actions such as:
• • entering the Indian market;
  • structuring major transactions;
  • entering into a joint venture;
  • engaging in a merger; or
  • establishing an international agency.
• Conduct tax due diligence before entering the Indian market or entering into a major transaction. Depending on the sphere of activity, check for eligibility for any special taxation regimes.
• Meticulously adhere to withholding tax obligations for both domestic and international transactions.
• For foreign companies, assess the risk of creating a permanent establishment when dealing with the Indian market in any way.
• Seek advance rulings and advance pricing agreements from the tax authorities for certainty.
• Check eligibility for the presumptive taxation regime and weigh the associated advantages and disadvantages.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.