Flipkart Gets Favourable Decision From ITAT
As reported earlier, Flipkart appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) against the Income Tax Tribunal’s determination that it had flouted taxation laws by classifying discounts and subsidies offered on the products sold on its platform, as a cost instead of capital expenditure, in order to evade substantial tax liabilities. The ITAT rejected the argument that discounts offered by Flipkart should be reclassified as capital expenditure. This decision comes in at an opportune time for Flipkart as it contemplates a significant acquisition by Walmart with the backdrop of the newly commissioned e-commerce policy that will have something to say about the difference between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure.
Central Government Admonishes Facebook and Cambridge Analytica
The Central Government had sent a notice to both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica in the wake of the massive worldwide data breach, for the purpose of gaining an explanation of the events that unfolded and plans to mitigate the current breach and/or nullify such data breaches in the future. Upon receiving a reply to said notice, the Government remarked that the reply was “evasive” and “cryptic”. The Central Government has sent a second notice in lieu of unanswered queries from the first notice and laid down a deadline of May 10, 2018 to both entities to submit their reply.
SC on Res Judicata
The Supreme Court in its judgment dated April 20, 2018 in Canara Bank v NG Subbaraya Setty, has observed that an issue of law which arises between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding is not res judicata (a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and therefore may not be pursued further by the same parties) if, by an erroneous decision given on a statutory prohibition in the former suit or proceeding, the statutory prohibition is not given effect to. The Court held that “The public policy contained in other statutory prohibitions, which need not necessarily go to jurisdiction of a court, must equally be given effect to, as otherwise special principles of law are fastened upon parties when special considerations relating to public policy mandate that this cannot be done.”