Countering the tax avoidance through codification of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) : Clause 178 of the Income Tax bill, 2025 Vs. Section 95 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Clause 178 Applicability of General Anti-Avoidance Rule.

Income Tax Bill, 2025

Introduction

Clause 178 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, marks a significant reaffirmation of India's commitment to countering tax avoidance through the statutory codification of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR). This clause, situated in Chapter XI of the Bill, provides the foundational framework for the application of GAAR, empowering tax authorities to disregard or recharacterize arrangements that are primarily designed to obtain tax benefits through impermissible avoidance schemes. The evolution of GAAR in India has been shaped by a complex interplay of legislative amendments, judicial pronouncements, expert committee recommendations, and administrative clarifications. The introduction of Clause 178 must be analyzed in the context of the existing Section 95 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the body of circulars and press releases issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), and the broader policy objectives articulated by the government and expert committees. This commentary provides a comprehensive examination of Clause 178, its objectives, practical implications, and comparative analysis with the existing legal regime.

Objective and Purpose

The legislative intent behind Clause 178, as with its predecessor Section 95, is to deter and address aggressive tax planning strategies that exploit gaps or ambiguities in the law to achieve tax benefits contrary to the substance and spirit of the tax legislation. The GAAR provisions are designed to supplement specific anti-avoidance rules (SAAR) by providing a general framework that empowers tax authorities to disregard arrangements that, while legal in form, are abusive or artificial in substance. This policy objective is rooted in the recognition that tax avoidance, though not illegal like tax evasion, undermines the equity and integrity of the tax system, erodes the tax base, and distorts economic decision-making. The legislative history, including the Direct Taxes Code Bill, 2010, the Finance Bill, 2012, and the recommendations of the Shome Committee, reflects a sustained effort to balance the need for revenue protection with the imperative to provide certainty and fairness to taxpayers. Clause 178, therefore, is not merely a restatement of existing law but a reaffirmation of the government's resolve to combat tax avoidance through a robust legal framework, supported by procedural safeguards and administrative guidance.

Detailed Analysis of Clause 178 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

1. Overriding Effect and Scope

Clause 178(1) employs a non-obstante clause, making it clear that GAAR provisions will prevail over any other provision of the Act. This is critical because tax statutes often have specific anti-avoidance rules (SAARs) and other provisions that could potentially conflict with a general anti-avoidance regime. By giving GAAR primacy, the legislature ensures that arrangements crafted to exploit the gaps or mismatches in the law can be addressed even if they formally comply with other provisions.

2. Power to Declare Arrangements as Impermissible

The core of Clause 178(1) is the authority to declare an arrangement as an "impermissible avoidance arrangement." This power is not unfettered but is "subject to the provisions of this Chapter," meaning it must be exercised in accordance with the detailed criteria, processes, and safeguards laid out in the GAAR chapter (presumably analogous to Chapter X-A of the 1961 Act).

3. Application to Steps or Parts of Arrangements

Clause 178(2) clarifies that GAAR can be applied not just to whole arrangements but to any step or part thereof. This is significant because complex tax avoidance structures often involve multiple steps, some of which may be innocuous on their own but, when viewed as part of a composite arrangement, are abusive. The ability to "look through" and target specific steps prevents taxpayers from shielding avoidance through compartmentalization.

4. Broad Definition of Arrangement

Although Clause 178 itself does not define "arrangement," the explanatory notes and the structure of the Bill (mirroring the 1961 Act) suggest that "arrangement" is to be interpreted broadly, covering any transaction, operation, scheme, agreement, or understanding, whether enforceable or not, and including the alienation of property.

5. Determination of Tax Consequences

Once an arrangement is declared impermissible, Clause 178 allows for the determination of "the consequence in relation to tax arising from it." This is a broad mandate, enabling the tax authority to deny tax benefits, recharacterize transactions, disregard entities, or otherwise adjust the tax outcome to reflect the substance over form.

Interpretation and Ambiguities

Despite the detailed framework, certain areas remain open to interpretation and potential dispute:

- Commercial Substance: The determination of whether an arrangement lacks commercial substance is inherently subjective and fact-specific.

- Main Purpose vs. One of the Main Purposes: While policy statements favor the "main purpose" test, the statutory language (in the 1961 Act and possibly in the 2025 Bill) has at times included "one of the main purposes," creating potential for broader application.

- Overlap with SAAR: The interplay between GAAR and specific anti-avoidance rules requires careful navigation to avoid double jeopardy or inconsistent treatment.

- Application to Steps or Parts: The ability to target individual steps in an arrangement raises questions about the scope of tax authority intervention and the potential for partial disallowance of benefits.

Procedural Safeguards and Administrative Practice

The GAAR regime incorporates several safeguards to prevent arbitrary or excessive application:

- Show Cause and Opportunity to be Heard: Taxpayers must be given notice and an opportunity to explain the commercial rationale for their arrangements.

- Approving Panel: The involvement of a high-level panel (including judicial and expert members) introduces an additional layer of scrutiny.

- Binding Nature of Decisions: Panel decisions are binding on both the taxpayer and the tax authority, promoting consistency.

- Advance Rulings: Taxpayers can seek advance rulings on the applicability of GAAR, although delays and administrative capacity issues have been noted.

Practical Implications

The practical impact of Clause 178 is multifaceted, affecting taxpayers, tax professionals, auditors, and the tax administration:

• Taxpayers: Taxpayers must carefully evaluate the substance and purpose of their arrangements, particularly in cases involving cross-border transactions, group restructurings, and use of tax treaties. The risk of GAAR invocation necessitates robust documentation of commercial rationale and business purpose.
• Tax Professionals and Auditors: Professionals advising on tax planning must ensure that arrangements are not only legally compliant but also commercially substantiated. The reporting requirements under the tax audit regime (Form 3CD, clause 30C) underscore the need for vigilance, though such reporting has been deferred periodically (see Circulars 6/2018, 9/2019).
• Tax Administration: The tax authorities are empowered to initiate GAAR proceedings, subject to internal vetting and approval by an Approving Panel. The process is designed to ensure that GAAR is invoked in deserving cases, supported by cogent evidence and detailed reasoning (as emphasized in Circular 7/2017 and the Shome Committee Report).

The invocation of GAAR can lead to denial of tax benefits, recharacterization of income or expenses, denial of treaty benefits, and other adverse consequences. The absence of corresponding adjustments across different taxpayers (see Circular 7/2017, Q13) reinforces the deterrent effect.

Comparative Analysis: Clause 178 vs Section 95 

A direct comparison of Clause 178 with Section 95 reveals substantial continuity, with some nuanced differences that may arise from subsequent refinements in the Bill or through subordinate legislation:

Provision	Section 95 of the Income Tax Act, 1961	Clause 178 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
Non-Obstante Clause	"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act..."	"Irrespective of anything contained in this Act..."
Scope	Arrangement entered into by an assessee may be declared to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement and tax consequences determined subject to Chapter X-A.	Arrangement entered into by an assessee may be declared to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement and tax consequences determined subject to the Chapter.
Step or Part of Arrangement	Explanation: Provisions may be applied to any step in, or part of, the arrangement as applicable to the arrangement.	Sub-clause (2): Provisions may be applied to any step in, or part of, the arrangement as applicable to the arrangement.
Temporal Applicability	Sub-section (2): Chapter applies in respect of any assessment year beginning on or after 1 April 2018.	Not explicitly stated in Clause 178; likely to be specified elsewhere in the Bill or through notification.

Key Observations:

• The substantive language is nearly identical, reflecting legislative intent to maintain continuity in the anti-avoidance framework.
• The temporal applicability (i.e., from which assessment year) is not specified in Clause 178 but is expected to be addressed through rules or notifications, as was done via Notification 49/2016 for the 1961 Act.
• The explanatory provision in Section 95 has been incorporated as a substantive sub-clause in Clause 178, enhancing clarity.

Interpretative Guidance from Circulars, Press Releases, and Reports

A series of circulars, press releases, and expert committee reports have shaped the interpretation and administration of GAAR in India. The following sections analyze the key clarifications and their relevance to Clause 178.

1. Circular No. 7/2017 (27-01-2017): Implementation of GAAR

This circular provides detailed clarifications on the interplay between GAAR and SAAR, the role of Limitation of Benefit (LOB) clauses in treaties, the taxpayer's right to choose transaction structures, grandfathering of investments, procedural safeguards, and the scope of application.

Key takeaways include:

- Coexistence of GAAR and SAAR: Both can apply, but if a specific anti-avoidance rule (SAAR) sufficiently addresses the abuse, GAAR need not be invoked.

- Taxpayer's Right to Structure Transactions: GAAR does not interfere with the taxpayer's right to choose among legitimate options provided by law.

- Grandfathering: Investments made before the effective date (April 1, 2017) are generally protected from GAAR.

- Procedural Safeguards: The process for invoking GAAR involves multiple levels of scrutiny, including approval by a high-level panel. These clarifications reinforce that Clause 178's broad enabling language is tempered by detailed administrative processes and taxpayer protections.

2. Circular No. 6/2018 and 9/2019: Reporting Requirements

These circulars defer the requirement for tax auditors to report GAAR-related information in Form 3CD. The repeated deferment reflects administrative caution and recognition of the complexity involved in GAAR implementation, particularly in the context of compliance burdens on taxpayers and auditors.

3. Press Release Dated 14-01-2013: Statement of the Finance Minister

The Press Release outlines the policy rationale for GAAR, the process of stakeholder consultation, and the government's acceptance of major recommendations from the Expert Committee (Shome Committee).

Key points include:

- The main purpose test (not merely "one of the main purposes") for impermissible avoidance arrangements. - Binding nature of Approving Panel directions on both the taxpayer and the tax authority.

- Grandfathering of pre-existing investments.

- Monetary threshold for GAAR applicability (Rs. 3 crore).

These policy statements provide the contextual backdrop for interpreting Clause 178 and related provisions.

4. Final Report of the Expert Committee on GAAR (14-01-2013)

The Shome Committee's report is a foundational document, offering comprehensive analysis and recommendations on the scope, definitions, procedural safeguards, and international comparisons. Notably, it emphasizes:

- The need to distinguish tax mitigation from tax avoidance.

- Application of GAAR only to abusive, artificial, and contrived arrangements.

- The importance of procedural fairness and administrative capacity.

- The role of negative lists and illustrative examples to guide interpretation.

The report's recommendations have been substantially incorporated into the legislative and administrative framework, and its detailed analysis informs the practical application of Clause 178.

5. Notification No. 49/2016: Effective Date of GAAR

This notification amends the Income-tax Rules to set the effective date for GAAR application as April 1, 2017. While Clause 178 of the 2025 Bill does not specify an effective date, such details are typically addressed in the Bill's commencement provisions or through subordinate legislation.

Key Issues and Doctrinal Considerations

1. Distinction between Tax Mitigation and Tax Avoidance

The Shome Committee and subsequent circulars emphasize that GAAR should not be invoked where the taxpayer avails of fiscal incentives expressly provided by the statute (tax mitigation). Only arrangements that are abusive, artificial, or lack commercial substance should attract GAAR.

2. Main Purpose Test and Tainted Elements

The definition of "impermissible avoidance arrangement" (as per Section 96 and likely to be retained in the Bill) requires satisfaction of both the main purpose test (main purpose is to obtain tax benefit) and the presence of tainted elements (non-arm's length dealings, misuse or abuse, lack of commercial substance, or abnormal manner). The Shome Committee recommended narrowing the test to "main purpose" rather than "one of the main purposes," but the statutory language continues to reflect a broader threshold, increasing the scope for invocation.

3. Commercial Substance and Substance over Form

A central inquiry under GAAR is whether the arrangement has real commercial substance or is a mere facade. The lack of a statutory definition of "commercial substance" has led to interpretational challenges, though guidance from the Shome Committee and international practice (e.g., UK, South Africa, Canada) provides useful benchmarks.

4. Procedural Safeguards

The multi-layered process for invoking GAAR-reference by the Assessing Officer, approval by the Commissioner, and final determination by an Approving Panel (with judicial and independent members)-is designed to prevent arbitrary or excessive application. The requirement for detailed reasoning and opportunity of being heard is essential to uphold principles of natural justice.

5. Treaty Override and Grandfathering

The interplay between GAAR and tax treaties, particularly in the context of Limitation of Benefits (LOB) clauses and grandfathering of pre-existing investments, remains a contentious area. The administrative clarifications and committee recommendations generally favor non-application of GAAR where the treaty itself contains adequate anti-abuse provisions or where investments are grandfathered.

6. Monetary Threshold

A monetary threshold (currently Rs 3 crore of tax benefit) for the application of GAAR seeks to ensure that only significant and sophisticated avoidance schemes are targeted, reducing compliance burdens for smaller taxpayers.

Practical Implications and Compliance Considerations

For Taxpayers and Businesses

• Need for enhanced documentation and justification of commercial rationale for tax-advantaged transactions.
• Increased scrutiny of cross-border and group restructuring arrangements, especially those involving low-tax jurisdictions.
• Potential exposure to denial of tax benefits, recharacterization of income, and denial of treaty benefits if arrangements are found to be impermissible avoidance schemes.
• Ongoing uncertainty regarding the precise boundaries between permissible tax planning and impermissible avoidance, necessitating conservative and transparent approaches.
• Taxpayers must ensure that their arrangements have genuine commercial substance and are not designed primarily for tax benefit.
• Robust documentation of the commercial purpose and economic substance of transactions is essential to withstand GAAR scrutiny.
• Arrangements lacking substance or involving abnormal steps may be disregarded, recharacterized, or otherwise adjusted by the tax authority.

For Auditors and Tax Professionals

• Obligation to report potentially impermissible avoidance arrangements in tax audit reports, subject to the status of reporting requirements under Form 3CD.
• Need for continuous monitoring of administrative guidance, judicial decisions, and evolving international standards.
• Advisory role in structuring transactions to withstand GAAR scrutiny, including stress-testing for commercial substance and business purpose.
• While reporting requirements have been deferred, auditors must remain vigilant regarding potential GAAR issues in client arrangements.
• Advisors must guide clients on the risks and boundaries of tax planning under the GAAR regime.

For Tax Authorities

• Requirement to adhere to procedural safeguards, provide detailed reasoning, and obtain approvals at multiple levels before invoking GAAR.
• Focus on targeting highly aggressive, artificial, or pre-ordained schemes, rather than routine tax planning.
• Responsibility to ensure uniform, fair, and rational application of GAAR, as emphasized in Circular 7/2017.
• The broad powers under Clause 178 are counterbalanced by procedural safeguards, including multi-tiered review and the need for cogent evidence.
• Authorities must adhere to the processes laid out in the Chapter (e.g., show cause notices, opportunity to be heard, approval by Approving Panel).

For Foreign Investors

• Treaty benefits may be denied if arrangements are found to be abusive, but LOB clauses and grandfathering provisions offer some protection.
• The existence of procedural safeguards and policy clarifications is intended to provide a degree of certainty, but the inherent subjectivity in GAAR application means some residual risk remains.

Comparative Jurisprudence and International Practice

The Indian GAAR regime, as reflected in Clause 178 and its supporting framework, aligns with international best practices observed in jurisdictions such as the UK, Australia, Canada, and South Africa. Common features include:

• Requirement of a dominant or main purpose to obtain tax benefit.
• Presence of tainted elements, such as lack of commercial substance or abnormal manner.
• Procedural safeguards, including independent panels or judicial oversight.
• Thresholds to target only significant or abusive schemes.

However, the Indian regime is distinguished by its detailed procedural requirements, explicit non-obstante clause, and the breadth of arrangements covered. The experience of other jurisdictions underscores the importance of clear guidance, consistency in application, and respect for legitimate tax mitigation.

Conclusion

Clause 178 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, is a pivotal provision that consolidates and reaffirms the statutory foundation for the General Anti-Avoidance Rule in India. While it largely mirrors the existing Section 95 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, its significance lies in its reiteration of the government's resolve to combat tax avoidance through a robust, fair, and procedurally safeguarded regime. The supporting body of circulars, press releases, committee reports, and notifications provides essential guidance on the scope, application, and limitations of GAAR, addressing stakeholder concerns and clarifying ambiguities. The comparative analysis highlights the continuity of legislative intent, the evolution of procedural safeguards, and the alignment with international standards. Going forward, the effectiveness of Clause 178 and the GAAR framework will depend on consistent and judicious application by the tax authorities, ongoing administrative guidance, and the development of jurisprudence that balances revenue interests with taxpayer certainty and fairness. Areas that may warrant further reform or clarification include the definition of commercial substance, the scope of treaty override, the monetary threshold, and the boundaries between permissible tax planning and impermissible avoidance.

---

Full Text:

Clause 178 Applicability of General Anti-Avoidance Rule.

 

 

Dated: 26-4-2025