Consentia on Multidisciplinary Research



 Most of the persons in India do not pay their taxes. Tax evasion has always been a criminal offence in India. There are a number of provisions relating to prosecution under Chapter XXII of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They try to avoid this by some illegal means or by taking the benefit of some loopholes in the Indian tax system.  Tax  evasion  is  the  term for the efforts by individuals,  corporate, trusts and other  entities  to  evade  taxes  by  illegal  means.  It  is  the  deliberate,  misrepresentation  or  concealment  of  the  true  state  of  their  affairs to the tax authorities to reduce their tax liability or to  avoid  the  tax  liability  by  declaring  less  incomes,  profits  or  gains  than  actually  what  they  earned  or  overstating  their  expenses.[1] Thus the amount which would have been used for  economic  and  social  development  is  used  for  anti  social  activities. All this creates black money and social evils in the society. Thus tax evasion is not only a problem in development of country but also harmful for the country. The level of Evasion  Tax also depends on the chartered accountants and tax lawyers  who  help  companies,  firms,  and  individuals  evade  paying  taxes.[2]  Tax  Evasion is  a  crime  in  all  major  countries  and  the  guilty parties are subjected to imprisonment and fines.

Tax evasion often entails taxpayers deliberately misrepresenting the true state of their affairs to the tax authorities to reduce their tax liability and includes dishonest tax reporting, such as declaring less income, profits or gains than the amounts actually earned, or overstating deductions. Tax evasion is an activity commonly associated with the informal economy. One measure of the extent of tax evasion (the “tax gap”) is the amount of unreported income, which is the difference between the amount of income that should be reported to the tax authorities and the actual amount reported.

In contrast, tax avoidance is the legal use of tax laws to reduce one’s tax burden. Both tax evasion and avoidance can be viewed as forms of tax noncompliance, as they describe a range of activities that intend to subvert a state’s tax system, although such classification of tax avoidance is not indisputable, given that avoidance is lawful, within self-creating systems.


Since 1947, nearly one dozen expert committees, including the Kelkar Task Force, have persisted in giving totally wrong advice to the government due to their neglect of the most basic and fundamental problem of the income-tax system, namely massive tax evasion.

Reckless pushing up of rates is responsible for making tax evasion nearly universal. For instance, income above Rs.One lakh (in rupees of 2003) was not taxed at all in 1939; at 3 % in 1960; and now the rate stands increased by nearly 7 times, to 20 %.

Till 1939, India had a highly civilized income-tax system. Exemption limit ( in rupees of 2003 ) was Rs. 2 Lakhs and the rates of tax on income up to Rs 10 Lakhs were below 8 %. Some other developing countries still have tax systems which command the respect of the taxpayers and provide more than double of India’s revenue.

Salary earners are the principal victims of lowering of the exemption limit to Rs. 50,000 and pushing up of the rates to atrocious levels.

Tax evasion continues to cause immense damage not only to the finances of the government but also to the economy of the country, because a major part of the tax evaded money goes abroad.

Tax evasion can be stopped almost totally and income-tax revenue doubled from its fixed level of 3% to 6% of GDP, by adopting rates similar to those introduced by President Putin in Russia.

India’s revenue stagnant at 3% of GDP against 8% in many other developing countries.[1]

Since 1947 the main object behind the appointment of nearly one dozen expert committees, including the Kelkar Task Force (KTF), was to advise the government on how to collect more revenue. Till the 1950s, almost all the developing countries of the world, including India, were collecting income-tax (IT) revenue between 2 to 3 % of GDP. While those countries which adopted sensible tax systems have succeeded in pushing up their IT revenue to around 8 %, in India it still remains at 3 % of GDP only. The government goes on appointing one expert committee after another in quick succession, in the vain hope of getting the right advice.[2]


Number of tax payers in India- According to the report released by Indian Finance Ministry, estimated number of taxpayers for financial year 2011-12 stands at just 3.24 crore people. That means, less than 3 people in 100 pay taxes .Out of these 3.25 crore people, 89 per cent pay taxes in the tax slab of 0 – 5 Lakhs rupees, while on the other end of spectrum, only 1.3% of all tax payers have income about 20 Lakhs.[3]

Tax Evasion: Major setbacks

There are numerous ways to evade or avoid that. All such practice cannot be brought into light, but some of the conventional practices are mentioned below:

  • Money Laundering
  • Tax Havens
  • Transfer Pricing
  • Trade Mispricing

These processes are followed to evade both direct and indirect taxes.[1]

Money Laundering

The term money laundering is used to refer to the process of showing illegal money as being generated through legitimate sources. It literally means washing of illegally obtained money to hide its true nature or source. A working definition was adopted by the Interpol General Assembly in 1995, defines it as ‘any act or attempted act to conceal or disguise the identity obtained proceeds so that they appear to have originated from legitimate source.[2]

A high prevalence of black money in a country adversely affects its economy and growth, and is reflected in poor socio-economic indices. In an economy where black money is widespread, the resources for developmental purposes would also be lacking.[3] One of the most important consequences of money laundering is rampant tax evasion. Since the laundered money cannot be sourced, it cannot be taxed either and this means a substantial loss of public revenue from the most convenient tax source of public finance.

Tax haven

Tax havens are locations with zero or lowrates to attract foreign capital and business. However, there is no precise definition of tax haven. The OECD initially defined tax haven in terms of countries or territories that have the following features: [4]

  • Zero or low axes
  • Lack of effective exchange of information/lack of tax information exchange with the other countries and even if this persists there is exchange for fraud and money laundering
  • Lack of transparency
  • A high degree of bank secrecy
  • Lack of real economic activity associated with the income generated
  • Tax havens are small countries
  • Population is less than on million
  • Tax havens are generally more affluent than other countries.

Banks for International Settlement (BIS) data shows that almost half of international loans and one-third of Foreign Direct Investment are routed through tax havens since early 1980s, avoiding substantial amount of taxes worldwide. A large amount of financial resources do not generate the presupposed benefit of FDI (employment, innovation, technology spillover, etc,) and the sole purpose of circulation is to escape legitimate tax payments.[5]

Transfer pricing

Transfer price is the price at which goods and services between related companies are transacted. The main branch of a company is called the parent company and a number of associated units spread in different countries or locations are called its subsidiaries.

The drawback in this case is because of the unfixed prices. As per the Transfer Pricing laws followed by various countries, it should be a fair one, that is, a price that would be charged between the parent and the subsidiary companies as if they were unrelated companies.[6] However, companies often manipulate the transfer price to escape taxes.

Theoretically, the concept and practice of transfer price is not illegal. The idea underlying transfer pricing is optimal allocation of a firm’s resources by minimizing costs. The practice can be accepted if the transactions between the parent company and its subsidiaries or between subsidiary firms can be done at the market price. Smaller manipulations might be tolerated but over the years, transfer prices have been severely manipulated in order to shift profits to low tax countries from to low tax countries from high tax countries. [7]

Trade Mispricing

Trade mispricing [8]refers to intentional overinvoicing or underinvoicing of exports and imports in order to escape taxes. Trade mispricing occurs when the import or export price for a particular good is invoiced at a level that either exceeds the market prices or is below the market price.

As for estimating the amount, there is no official record of the money that leaves the country through trade mispricing. Hence, it is impossible to find in the official records of a country.

During the 1990’s, the capital account was made partially convertible; while residents could bring money into India, they were not allowed to take it out. Attempts were made to calculate the extent of export misinvoicing and import misinvoicing.  Empirical evidence shows that despite strict capital controls, substantial capital flight took place in India due to trade misinvoicing. [9]

Contributing factors -tax evasion

Why tax evasion so large in India?

The most important question that these committees should have considered is the reason behind so much tax evasion in India. They were not unaware of the existence of substantial tax evasion. But they always disposed of the subject casually by blaming it either on low morality of India’s taxpayers or loopholes in law or laxity in administration. They kept making meaningless suggestions such as “change the mindset of the taxpayers”.

Other countries rates: If any of these committees had looked at the rates of successful developing countries it would have at once discovered why their tax evasion is negligible and the revenue collected by them is two to three times more than India’s.

A few countries main rates are mentioned here.

The city of Hong Kong has the most ideal tax system in the world. Without taxing interest, dividend, capital gains and international trading income, it has been collecting more IT revenue than the whole of India, even in absolute terms. For individuals its exemption limit is about Rs 14 lakh, starting rate is 2% and maximum rate is 20%. Companies are taxed at 15%. The city is also almost totally free of the evils like litigation, bribery and accumulation of tax arrears. Because of massive voluntary compliance, it does not need an army of law enforcers. It employs one Commissioner (counterpart of CBDT), two deputy commissioners and five assistant commissioners. India employs thousands of them.

Singapore has exemption limit of Rs 5 lakh, starting rate of 4% and applies its maximum rate of 22% to income above the equivalent of Rs one crore. Rates of mainland China are far from the ideal, but unlike India it has the good sense to apply the rate of 30% to income above the equivalent of Rs 30 lakh.[10]

Russia taxes entire individual income at the single rate of 13%.

India’s rates: A comparison with India’s rates would have shown that the rate structure is the main culprit responsible for forcing most of the taxpayers to evade tax on a major part of their income.

Just like the other countries mentioned above, even India had a fairly reasonable rate structure till 1939. Thereafter under the misconception that higher rates will lead to higher revenue, India went on raising the rates.

The rates were increased in two ways. One was to push up the top rate, applicable to high income earners, which reached nearly 98%. This has, however, been brought down to 31.5%.

But the much more damaging method was to go on shifting the super heavy rates to absurdly low levels of income.

History of one such rate, that is the 30% rate, will show how the government recklessly went on making the burden of tax intolerable and forcing major part of the income to flow outside the tax system.

The rate of 30% was applicable to income above Rs 60 lakh in 1939, 6 lakh in 1959 (in rupees of 2003) and now it applies just above the petty amount of Rs 1.5 lakh.

By the 1960s rates had become intolerable for higher income groups, but two-third of the individual taxpayers were still paying tax at 3% and 6% only. Subsequent increases in rates have forced most of them also to become tax evaders.

In 1960 income above Rs one lakh (in rupees of 2003) was taxed at 3% and it is now taxed at 20%. Pushing up the rate nearly 7 times at certain levels of income is the root cause of massive tax evasion.

Merciless taxation of Partnership Firms: India is not only taxing the individuals at atrocious rates but also the business entities. Partnership firms are the most mercilessly taxed class of taxpayers and consequently evade tax on the bulk of their income. In most of the countries their income is taxed only once, and that is in the hands of partners, as was being done in India also till 1956. Thereafter India started the most oppressive system of taxing firms and partners both. And since 1993 it has switched over to the equally obnoxious system of taxing even the pettiest of firms at the rate applicable to companies.

Look at the absurdity of the current system. If one individual earns income of Rs 10 lakh he pays tax of Rs 2,87,700 but if two or ten individuals share the same income through a firm they pay tax of Rs 3,67,500. Such patently unfair provisions have driven firms largely outside the tax system. Currently they appear to be the biggest tax evaders in the country.

Heavy burden on corporate income : The rate of 30% recommended by the KTF is alright for large companies. But small companies will never be prepared to pay tax at 30%. Currently they evade tax on the bulk of their income. To persuade smaller companies to pay tax, and to induce the larger partnership firms to become companies, the KTF could have recommended the UK pattern of taxing companies at three rates of 10%, 20% and 30%.

The secret of success of many developing countries in pushing up their IT revenue lies in inducing the larger partnerships to become companies, paying tax at 10% or 15%, without subjecting their distributed income to multiple taxation.[11]

Agricultural income rightly not taxed: Another example of a recommendation based on total ignorance is that taxing agricultural income will reduce tax evasion and increase revenue. If KTF had looked at the data of other countries it would have discovered that probably none of them is actually able to collect tax in respect of agricultural income. In countries like the US, farmers always show more agricultural losses than income, and thereby reduce tax even on non-agricultural income. Imposition of this tax in India will mean harassment of illiterate farmers and benefit only the inspectors and tax practitioners. It cannot yield any revenue.


Reasons behind the Failure of the policies


Extremely naive ideas about appropriate rates: None of the expert committees tried to find out the type of rates necessary to improve compliance and bring down tax evasion. They had extremely naïve ideas about rates.

For instance, in 1992 Chelliah Committee recommended the rate of 27.5% on income above Rs 50,000 (equal to Rs one lakh of today). Such recommendations were based on massive ignorance. It never occurred to the learned members of this committee that by proposing a rate 9 times higher, compared to its level in the 1960s, they would be promoting tax evasion and not revenue.

Two years back, Shome committee recommended that the rate of 30% should be applied on income above Rs 2 lakh. And the KTF wants it to be applied above Rs 4 lakh.

Expert committees suggesting rates without the slightest regard to their effect on tax evasion is bad enough. What is still worse is that even businessmen’s top organization, FICCI, wants the rate of 30% to be applied to income above Rs 3 lakh when even China applies it above Rs 30 lakh and India itself applied above Rs 60 lakh at one time. Rates are the most crucial element of the IT system. Such a casual approach to the rates is the root cause of most of the problems.

What misled the committees: It seems what has been misleading all the expert committees, comprising highly learned people, is the drastic reduction in the top rate from its peak point of nearly 98%. What further keeps misleading them is that India’s maximum rate is very close to the top rate of many of the developed countries.

All these committees have failed to realise that it is not the maximum rate alone which matters. What governs acceptability by the taxpayers is the rate applicable at each level of individual income, and the rates applicable to different business entities.

Principle governing the rates : Countries like Russia and Hong Kong have discovered the most appropriate principle that should govern the fixation of rates, i.e., they should be acceptable to the vast majority of the taxpayers so that evasion is kept at the lowest possible level. And they have also found that even the richest of the rich cannot be persuaded to pay tax at a rate higher than 15, or at the most 20%.

Unacceptable rates cannot be enforced by any type of penal or coercive measures, except in the case of taxpayers like salary earners. That is why currently the developed countries are able to enforce their atrocious rates mainly against salary earners, who cannot easily escape.[12]

Attack on exemptions and replies entirely due to ignorance: All the committees have failed to realise that revenue remains at an extremely low level primarily due to massive tax evasion and pushing out of medium and small scale business entities largely outside the tax system. Consequently they keep blaming other things like exemptions. The most glaring example currently in the news is the attack of KTF on individual exemptions. It believes that as the rates have come down almost all individual exemptions should be withdrawn.

If KTF had looked at the past history it would have discovered that till 1960s there were hardly any exemptions. And the reason for that was that individual income above Rs one lakh (in rupees of 2003) was till then taxed at only 3%. Thereafter reliefs and exemptions had to be brought in because the government went on raising the rates and income above Rs one lakh started getting taxed at 20%. [13]

KTF wants that the rate of tax at this level of income should continue at 20% but exemptions must go. Most of the expert committees have been making this type of recommendations because of their failure to study the basic facts.

Budget 2012 – Prosecution and imprisonment for Income Tax Evasion[14]


 Expediting prosecution proceedings under the Act

Chapter XXII of the Income-tax Act, 1961 details punishable offences and prosecution for such offences. Prosecution under the direct tax laws is used as a tool for deterrence and effective enforcement of laws.

It is proposed to strengthen the prosecution mechanism (through new sections 280A, 280B, 280C and 280D) under the Income-tax Act by –

(i) Providing for constitution of Special Courts for trial of offences.

(ii) Application of summons trial for offences under the Act to expedite prosecution proceedings as the procedures in a summons trial are simpler and less time consuming.

(iii) Providing for appointment of public prosecutors.

The existing provisions of section 276C, 276CC, 277, 277A and section 278 of the Income-tax Act provide that in a case where the amount of tax, penalty or interest which would have been evaded by a person exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine.

In case the amount which would have been evaded by a person does not exceed one hundred thousand rupees, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and with fine.

The threshold of one hundred thousand rupees was introduced in 1976. It is proposed to be amended so that the revised threshold will be twenty-five hundred thousand rupees.

Summons trials apply to offences where the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed two years. It is, therefore, proposed that where the amount which would have been evaded does not exceed twenty-five hundred thousand rupees, the person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years and with fine.

These amendments took effect from the 1st day of July, 2012.

Vodafone case

Summary of the case: Vodafone International Holdings BV (“Vodafone“) entered into a Share Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) with Hutchison Telecommunications International Limited (“HTIL”), Cayman Islands for purchasing the singular equity share of CGP Investment (Holdings) Ltd (“CGP”), a Cayman based wholly owned subsidiary of HTIL. CGP in turn, directly and indirectly, owned approximately 67 percent of the share capital of Vodafone Essar Limited (“VEL”), an Indian entity. The acquisition resulted in Vodafone acquiring control over CGP and its subsidiaries, including VEL. The Revenue authorities issued a notice to Vodafone, treating it as an assessee-in-default for failure to withhold taxes on gains arising to HTIL on the transfer of shares of CGP. The Revenue authorities held that the gains were taxable in India as there was transfer of a controlling stake or business situated in India.

Judgment of the High Court: Following the writ petition filed by Vodafone in 2010, the Bombay High Court (HC) analyzed the transaction documents, the filings made with regulatory authorities and the various public announcements made by Vodafone and HTIL in detail and came to the conclusion that the business understanding of the parties was to transfer the controlling interest in VEL – which had significant nexus with India.

The situs of the capital asset was held to be a crucial jurisdictional condition that must be fulfilled in order to attract chargeability of income arising from the transfer of a capital asset. It was held that while transfer of a share of CGP per se could not be taxed in India due to lack of situs in India, intrinsic to the transaction were transfer of other rights and entitlements – such ‘bundle of rights’ also constituted ‘capital assets’.

It was held that transfer of such rights as were found to have nexus with India could be taxed in India and the consideration should be appropriately allocated over the various rights transferred in the transaction. In relation to applicability of section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), which provides for tax withholding, it was held that once the nexus with India is shown to exist, withholding tax obligation would arise including on a non resident.

Judgment of the SC: The three member bench of the SC, headed by Chief Justice Kapadia delivered its verdict in favour of Vodafone setting aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court.

 The Bench held that investment structures had to be respected and it was to be determined whether an investment was made for participation in the entity or whether it was a pre-ordained transaction aimed at avoidance of taxes. The Bench also examined the need to review the decision of the SC in Azadi Bachao Andolan and concluded that there seemed to be no reason to refer the decision for reconsideration by a larger Bench.

The SC also stated that genuine strategic tax planning could not be ruled against. The CGP structure was in place since 1998, and it could not be said that this was a preordained transaction. Further, it could not be said that CGP had no role to play, since apart from holding shares, it also assisted in smooth foundation of the entire structure. This was not a sham transaction, or a transaction aimed at avoidance of tax. The CGP share was located outside India and therefore India had no jurisdiction to tax the same. Thus, the withholding tax provisions would not be triggered in the current case. The subject matter of the transaction was the share of CGP share and India had no right of jurisdiction to tax such a transaction. It was also contended by the council representing the tax officials that the treaty signed outside India to evade tax.

CJ Kapadia concluded his speaking order by forcefully the Government needs to play its role to avoid conflicting interpretations. This judgment will help address several contentious issues including those with respect to scope and sanctity of tax planning, applicability of anti avoidance rules, taxation of overseas transactions, issues regarding situs of shares, and applicability of withholding tax provisions in case of non residents not having a presence in India.

Whilst deciding the USD 2 billion tax dispute in favour of Vodafone, the SC has laid down important principles with respect to offshore transfer of shares having underlying interest in India and principles to be considered in applying the general anti avoidance rules.

Repercussions of Vodafone Case & Retrospective Amendments to Income Tax Act

The judgment was a landmark, based on the court’s interpretation of Sections 5 and 9 of the I-T Act, that the Indian authorities did not have the powers to tax the 2007 Cayman Islands transaction under which Vodafone Group Plc entered the Indian mobile phone market. The court also directed the IT Department to return $495 million to Vodafone with 4 percent interest.

However, on March 16, 2012, following the Budget speech of the Finance Minister, the government announced that it will seek a retrospective amendment to the IT Act of 1961 to bring such deals under the tax jurisdiction of the state. The amendment in the Income Tax Act would come into effect retrospectively from April 1, 1962 and will “accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years,” says the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2012, to all past transactions concerning assets in India.

Under the proposed amendment, all persons, whether resident or non-residents, who have business connection in India will be required to deduct tax at source and pay it to the government even if the transaction is executed on a foreign soil. The amendment will apply to all past transactions concerning assets in India. Vodafone argued that the government had no jurisdiction over a transaction between two foreign companies occurring on foreign soil. For now, if the amendments were to be enacted into law, Vodafone could face a tax bill of at least $2 billion for the near $11.2-billion deal with Hutchison in 2007.

Despite the denial by the Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee that this was not ‘case-specific’, the most immediate compulsion behind this amendment appear to be the recent court reprieve granted to Vodafone. The government wants to ensure that cross-border transactions such as the $11.08 billion Vodafone-Hutchison deal are taxable, and that it does not lose out on revenue on offshore deals, by bringing all future transactions under the tax net.
Retrospective amendments to the I-T Act have been upheld by courts in the past. In 1987, the government retrospectively amended the Act to introduce a compulsory tax on offshore drilling contracts by increasing the number of nautical miles from shore that would be affected.[15]

Significance of this amendment[16]
The amendment is crucial because a review petition by the government is currently pending before the Supreme Court, which might now have to consider the changes in tax laws when it revisits its judgment. It is possible that not just Vodafone, but even other large acquisitions of Indian assets would be up for review. Inflows from Mauritius currently top the list for FDI, and observers worry that even this much-favored route may be seriously affected. In cases where tax demands are contested in courts, the companies concerned may see their positions weakened.

Following the Vodafone judgment, analysts predicted that the government would introduce changes to bring such deals into the tax net in the future, but the retrospective clarification appears to have taken the industry and tax professionals by surprise. The changes in the Income Tax Act, according to experts, will also have a bearing on about 500 overseas deals of similar kind, experts said. As per the proposed changes in the IT Act of 1961, any asset which is registered or incorporated outside India shall be deemed to be situated in India “if the share or interest derives, directly or indirectly, its value substantially from the assets located in India.

What is next?
The tax department has already sought a review of the Supreme Court verdict in the Vodafone case. The next few weeks could even see the tax department issue a fresh notice to Vodafone and the company challenging that notice. The retrospective amendment, if passed by Parliament, is likely to be challenged by Vodafone for its constitutional validity. If the constitutional validity is upheld, a host of other similar cases, too, will likely be affected. For now, in a note circulated by the Finance Ministry, the government sought to argue that the decision to amend the I-T Act with retrospective effect would not impact foreign investment flows.


Tax evasion is an important and significant phenomenon that affects both developed and developing economies. Although there is residual uncertainty surrounding the accuracy of measurements, even the most conservative estimates suggest the hidden economy in the United Kingdom and United States to be at least 10 percent of the measured economy. There are many countries where it is very much higher. The substantial size of the hidden economy, and the tax evasion that accompanies it, require understanding so that the effects of policies that interact with it can be correctly forecast. [17]

The trigger of tax evasion in India is failure to file timely return of income, false statement and verification, willful attempt to evade tax, fabrication of accounts and documents and failure to deposit tax deducted or collected at source attract minimum rigorous imprisonment of three/ six months. Removal, concealment, transfer or delivery of property to thwart tax recovery or failure to afford necessary facilities for the officers during search operations are some more offences liable for rigid sentences.

In my opinion the high tax rates, corruption in public sector units, multiple tax rates and inefficient tax authorities are the main causes of tax evasion which should not exert the tax payer. It is suggested that reduction in tax rates, simplifications of tax laws, remove loopholes in the tax system and some extent proper processing of information available the under the annual information return can be best tool for improving Indian tax compliance. Therefore there is a need for creating transparent, friendlier and less discriminatory administrative system. Further there is also a need to educate the people about Indian Tax law and create such an environment in which they pay their due taxes, do not evade the tax and feel proud in discharging their duty to pay the taxes. The burden of tax should be borne by all fairly and not only the rich class which drives them to the conclusion to evade the same.

  • The commissions set up by governments should be more efficient in finding solution for the problems faced by India in case of tax evasion and also implement the same.
  • Tax should be reasonably charged so that the tax bearers do not feel that they are victimized.
  • It should also be made clear to the public that tax is the contribution made to the government for its efficiency.
  • There should also be transparency as of where the taxes paid by the subjects are utilized so that they do not feel that they have been misused by the handlers of the tax or the dirty politicians.

[1] H M Treasury, UK ‘Trackling Indirect Tax Fraud’, Nov 2001. URL: (Visited on 13 August,2013)

[2] (Visited on 10 August, 2013)

[3] (Visited on !4August, 2013)

[4] Organisation for Economic Development and cooperation, Harmful tax Competition: An Emerging Global issue, 1998, p-23.

[5] Gosh S. (2010), “Creative Accounting: A Fraudulent practice leading to corporate collapse”, Research and practice in social sciences, Vol 6, Iss 1, pp1-15.

[6] Tax Justice Network: ‘Tax Us If You Can’. (visited on 10 August, 2013)

[7] Analyzing Indian Transfer Pricing Regulation: C Case Study, 2010 by Monica Singhania, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, ISSN 1450-2887 Issue 40 [2010] Eurojourals Publishing Inc.

[8],00.html , (visited on 10 August, 2013)

[9] Kar, Dev (april 9,2011): ‘An Empirical Study on the Transfer of black money from India’, Economic & Political Weekly Vol XIV.

[10] Simser, Jeffrey (2008) “Tax evasion and avoidance typologies”, Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 11 Iss: 2, pp.123 – 134

[11] Simser, Jeffrey (2008) “Tax evasion and avoidance typologies”, Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 11 Iss: 2, pp.123 – 134

[12] Simser, Jeffrey (2008) “Tax evasion and avoidance typologies”, Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 11 Iss: 2, pp.123 – 134

[13] Jones, Michael (2011), Creative Accounting, Fraud and International Accounting Standard.England: John Wiley & Sons

[14], Visited on 7th August, 2013.

[15] (Visited on 12 August, 2013)

[16], (Visited on 10 August, 2013)

 [17] Spicer, M.W., and Lundstedt, S.B. (1976) “Understanding tax evasion.” Public Finance 31: 295-305.

[1] Everest-Phillips, Max (2008b), Linking Business Tax Reform with Governance, Business Taxation in Practice, No 1, 2008, 1-4.

[2] Gupta, Sanjeev and Shamsuddin Tareq (2008), Mobilizing Revenue, Finance and Development 45, September 2008, p. 44-47.

[3] Ibdi

[1] Dev, S. Mahendra . (1985), “The general theory of tax avoidance”, National Tax Journal 38(3):325-337.

 [2] Everest-Phillips, Max (2008b), Linking Business Tax Reform with Governance, Business Taxation in Practice, No 1, 2008, 1-4.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s