October 2024

In response to recent social media concerns, the Union government has clarified that tax clearance certificates will be mandatory only for specific individuals, not for all overseas travellers. This clarification follows a proposal in the Finance Bill, 2024, which had sparked confusion about the necessity of these certificates. Scope of the Amendment The Finance Bill, 2024, proposed an amendment that would have made tax clearance certificates mandatory for all Indian citizens travelling abroad. However, the government has now clarified that this requirement is not universal. Who Needs the Tax Clearance Certificate? The tax clearance certificate is mandatory only for individuals who meet specific criteria: Involvement in Serious Financial Irregularities: Individuals suspected of serious financial misconduct, whose presence is crucial for investigations under the Income-tax Act or the Wealth-tax Act, and where it is likely that a tax demand will be raised against them. Outstanding Direct Tax Arrears: Individuals with direct tax arrears exceeding ₹10 lakh that have not been stayed by any authority. Legal Framework Section 230 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifies that not every person is required to obtain a tax clearance certificate. The provision states that only certain persons, in respect of whom circumstances exist that necessitate the requirement for the certificate, will be required to obtain it. Application and Approval Process Documentation: The reasons for requiring the certificate must be documented. Approval: Approval must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. Issuance: The certificate is issued by the income-tax authority, stating that the person has no outstanding liabilities under the Income-tax Act, the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Gift-tax Act, 1958, or the Expenditure-tax Act, 1987. Historical Context A 2004 notification by the Income Tax Department specified that the tax clearance certificate may be required to be obtained by persons domiciled in India only in certain circumstances, including serious financial irregularities and substantial tax arrears. Key Points Not Mandatory for All: The proposed amendment does not require all residents to obtain a tax clearance certificate. Only those meeting specific criteria are required to do so. Circumstances for Requirement: The certificate is required in cases of serious financial irregularities or substantial tax arrears exceeding ₹10 lakh. Approval and Documentation: The reasons for requiring the certificate must be documented, and approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax is necessary. Effective Date: The new provision will come into effect from October 1, 2024. Revised Mandate The revised mandate states that “no person who is domiciled in India shall leave India unless he obtains a certificate from the income-tax authorities stating that he has no liabilities under the Income-tax Act, or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, or the Gift-tax Act, 1958, or the Expenditure-tax Act, 1987.” Inclusion of the Black Money Act The Finance Bill, 2024, proposes to add the reference of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, to the list of Acts under which liabilities must be cleared to obtain a tax clearance certificate. Conclusion The government’s clarification ensures that only those who meet specific criteria are required to obtain the tax clearance certificate, thereby facilitating smoother travel for the majority of Indian citizens while ensuring compliance with tax laws. This measure aims to prevent tax evasion and ensure that individuals have settled all their income tax obligations before leaving the country.

The Indian government has introduced a significant amendment through the Finance Bill, 2024, which has led to confusion about the necessity of tax clearance certificates for Indians travelling abroad. Here is the accurate clarification: Scope of the Amendment The proposed amendment does not require every Indian citizen to obtain a tax clearance certificate. Instead, only specific individuals who meet certain criteria are required to secure this certificate. Who Needs a Tax Clearance Certificate? The certificate is required for individuals who fall under the following categories: Involvement in Serious Financial Irregularities: Individuals suspected of serious financial misconduct, whose presence is crucial for investigations under the Income-tax Act or the Wealth-tax Act, and where it is likely that a tax demand will be raised against them. Outstanding Direct Tax Arrears: Individuals with direct tax arrears exceeding ₹10 lakh that have not been stayed by any authority. Legal Framework The requirement for a tax clearance certificate is grounded in Section 230 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to this section, not every person is required to obtain a tax clearance certificate; only those in specific circumstances are mandated to do so. Application and Approval Process Before a person is asked to obtain a tax clearance certificate, the reasons for this requirement must be documented. Approval must also be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. Issuance of the Certificate The certificate is issued by the income-tax authority, stating that the person has no outstanding liabilities under the Income-tax Act, the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Gift-tax Act, 1958, or the Expenditure-tax Act, 1987. Inclusion of the Black Money Act The Finance Bill, 2024, proposes to add the reference of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, to the list of Acts under which liabilities must be cleared to obtain a tax clearance certificate. Historical Context A 2004 notification by the finance ministry specified that the tax clearance certificate may be required to be obtained by persons domiciled in India only in certain circumstances, including serious financial irregularities and substantial tax arrears. Key Points Not Mandatory for All: The proposed amendment does not require every person to obtain a tax clearance certificate. Only those meeting specific criteria are required to do so. Circumstances for Requirement: The certificate is required in cases of serious financial irregularities or substantial tax arrears exceeding ₹10 lakh. Approval and Documentation: The reasons for requiring the certificate must be documented, and approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax is necessary. Effective Date: The new provision will come into effect from October 1, 2024. Revised Mandate The revised mandate states that “no person who is domiciled in India shall leave India unless he obtains a certificate from the income-tax authorities stating that he has no liabilities under the Income-tax Act, or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, or the Gift-tax Act, 1958, or the Expenditure-tax Act, 1987.” Conclusion The government’s clarification ensures that only those who meet specific criteria are required to obtain the tax clearance certificate, thereby facilitating smoother travel for the majority of Indian citizens while ensuring compliance with tax laws.

In response to recent concerns and social media discussions, the government has clarified that not all Indian residents are required to obtain tax clearance certificates for foreign travel. This clarification follows the proposal in the Finance Bill, 2024, which led to confusion about the necessity of such certificates. Who Requires a Tax Clearance Certificate? According to the Ministry of Finance, only specific individuals are mandated to obtain a tax clearance certificate. These include: Persons Accused of Financial Irregularities: Individuals who are involved in serious financial irregularities and whose presence is necessary for investigations under the Income-tax Act or the Wealth-tax Act. Persons with Substantial Tax Arrears: Individuals who have direct tax arrears exceeding ₹10 lakh that have not been stayed by any authority. Legal Framework and Application Process The requirement for a tax clearance certificate is grounded in the Income Tax Act, specifically Section 230, and a 2004 notification by the finance ministry. Section 230 of the Income Tax Act: This section stipulates that not every person needs a tax clearance document. Only certain individuals, as specified, are required to obtain the certificate. 2004 Notification: The Income Tax Department specified that a tax clearance certificate may be required in certain circumstances. These include: The person is involved in serious financial irregularities and their presence is necessary for investigations under the Income-tax Act or the Wealth-tax Act. The person has direct tax arrears exceeding ₹10 lakh that have not been stayed by any authority. Approval and Issuance: A person can be asked to obtain a tax clearance certificate only after the Income Tax authorities record the reasons for the requirement and obtain approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The certificate must be issued to these individuals, confirming that they have no outstanding tax liabilities. Key Points Not Mandatory for All: The proposed amendment does not require all Indian residents to obtain a tax clearance certificate. The requirement is limited to specific circumstances as outlined above. Compliance: The certificate ensures that individuals have met their tax obligations, contributing to a more transparent and accountable tax system. Penalties for Non-Compliance: Failure to obtain the certificate when required can lead to legal and financial consequences, including potential delays or issues during travel. The government’s clarification aims to alleviate confusion and ensure that only those who meet specific criteria are required to obtain the tax clearance certificate, thereby facilitating smoother travel for the majority of Indian citizens.

Asia News International (ANI) has filed a lawsuit against Netflix and the producers of the mini-series “IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack,” alleging copyright and trademark infringement. The case, presented in the Delhi High Court, targets Matchbox Shots LLP, Benaras Media Works, series director Anubhav Sinha’s production company, as well as Netflix US and Netflix India. ANI is seeking the removal of four episodes from the six-episode series or a commitment from the filmmakers to eliminate the infringing content. Key Allegations Unauthorized Use of Footage: ANI claims that the series has made extensive use of its footage without proper authorization. This includes what ANI describes as “probably the only footage” of Mohammad Masood Azhar, the founder of the Pakistan-based terrorist organization Jaish-e-Mohammed, which was captured by ANI’s camera personnel in Karachi. Trademark Infringement: ANI argues that its logo appears in some of the footage, constituting trademark infringement. The agency expressed concern that allowing such unauthorized use would discourage investment in news collection, emphasizing that news gathering is a business. Concerns Over Representation: Advocate Siddhant Marwah, representing ANI, stated that the series has been criticized for allegedly whitewashing Pakistan’s role in the hijacking incident. He emphasized that ANI does not want to be associated with a series perceived as anti-national or as a public relations effort for Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI. Defense Arguments Producers’ Claims: Advocate Hiren Kamod, representing Matchbox Shots, argued that the production company entered into agreements with Conceptual Pictures Worldwide Ltd and Wilderness Films India Pvt Ltd, granting them rights to use the footage. Kamod also stated that ANI had licensed the footage to Reuters, which subsequently provided it to other companies involved in the production. Netflix’s Position: Counsel for Netflix contended that they had obtained rights to use the footage through these agreements and argued that any claims of infringement should be directed at those who provided the footage rather than Netflix itself. Court Proceedings Justice Mini Pushkarna heard initial arguments but did not grant any interim relief in favor of ANI at this stage. She directed the defendants to file their replies within two days and scheduled further consideration of the case for September 13 and 16. The resolution of this lawsuit could have significant implications for copyright law and media representation in India, particularly regarding how archival footage is utilized in film and television productions.

Asia News International (ANI) has filed a lawsuit against Netflix, alleging copyright and trademark infringement concerning the series “IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack.” The case, brought before the Delhi High Court, claims that Netflix used ANI’s exclusive news footage without proper authorization. This footage includes significant moments featuring then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and General Parvez Musharraf, which are pivotal to the narrative of the 1999 hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814. Key Points of the Case Allegations by ANI: ANI asserts that Netflix incorporated its proprietary footage into four episodes of the series without obtaining the necessary licenses. The agency contends that this unauthorized use infringes on its copyright and constitutes trademark infringement due to the visibility of the ANI logo in the footage. Netflix’s Defense: In response to the allegations, Netflix claims that it had an agreement with British news agency Reuters, which is a shareholder in ANI, for the use of the footage in question. Netflix argues that it believed it was compliant with copyright laws based on this arrangement and had no reason to question the legitimacy of the footage’s acquisition. Court Proceedings: Justice Mini Pushkarna has issued notices to Netflix and the producers of “IC 814” requiring them to respond to ANI’s claims within two days. The court will review ANI’s request for interim relief, which includes taking down the disputed episodes and blurring the ANI logo throughout the series. Broader Implications: This lawsuit highlights significant issues surrounding copyright law and the rights of news agencies in India. The outcome could set important precedents regarding how archival footage is utilized in media productions and may influence future collaborations between news agencies and streaming platforms. The resolution of this legal dispute could have far-reaching effects on both ANI’s operations and Netflix’s content creation strategies in India.

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has issued an injunction in favor of Amul, India’s largest dairy brand, against the Italian company Terre Primitive, which faced accusations of cross-border trademark infringement. The Italian firm was found to be marketing cookies and chocolate-covered biscuits under the name “Amuleti,” a brand name that closely resembles Amul’s, as reported by The Times of India.The legal action was initiated by the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF), which oversees the Amul brand, through attorney Abhishek Singh. Singh argued that Amul is a well-established household name in India with an expanding international presence, currently ranked as one of the top eight dairy companies globally. He pointed out that Terre Primitive’s use of the suffix “eti” was a clear attempt to imitate Amul’s branding, including its script and overall design.Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled comprehensively in favor of Amul, ordering the removal of all infringing products from Terre Primitive’s website. The court also imposed an injunction preventing the Italian company from using any marks that resemble Amul’s in the future. Furthermore, Meta Inc. was directed to take down or block any social media accounts associated with Terre Primitive that promoted these infringing products.Jayen Mehta, managing director of GCMMF, celebrated the court’s decision as a significant victory for Amul. He highlighted that this ruling sets an important precedent for protecting Indian brands from international imitations and is vital for safeguarding the identity and reputation of homegrown businesses.This ruling marks a crucial milestone in the ongoing fight against cross-border trademark infringement and reinforces the rights of Indian brands on the global stage.