Case Study Of Hutchison And Vodafone

In accordance with the Vodafone controversy, Mr. Kaushal Kumar Sharma was the person who raised the original demand for the taxes. Mr. Sharma was appointed as the Income tax commissioner when he led the tax demand.

The company will continue to operate independently and it is likely the company will maintain a similar strategy to what it has been operating under to this day. According to the official statement, the investment is done through the holding company of First Eagle, Arnhold and S.

It has been noted that when products are traded, regulations and policies are present. With these regulations and policies, company’s operations may be impaired. Some countries also control the entrance of foreign companies which would also affect the process of operation of these companies. Large tax implementation is one of the controls that government usually pursues. With such government control many companies are impaired and usually can not operate on those countries.

Directors believed that neither current tax liability nor a deferred tax liability was necessary as the company was making tax losses because of huge allowable deductions available for exploration and development costs. According to Leo, Hoggett, & Sweeting (2012), tax loss provides future deduction for the company, hence deductible temporary difference exists and deferred tax asset arises. In facts, Gravatt Ltd had an income tax expense of $24.3million instead of tax losses if it followed the accounting standard. This might be due to its taxable income was still more than tax deduction after considering the development costs. Therefore, argument of directors is invalid as according to AASB 112, tax loss arises when a company’s tax deductions exceeds its taxable income.

This is a kind of justice which we in India are trying to realize through the process of law and our substantive law is being ,geared to this task."

However, if the carrier was found to be at fault the possible remedies against them is contained in Article IV s5 ssa of the Hague-Visby rules:

From the above figure we find that there are many companies who provide the mobile tower facility. Also, there is very less or no scope for forward integration by these companies. It is unlikely that these companies will enter the telecom industry

1). Vodacom Group Limited is listed in the ‘Companies’ sector of the JSE. The company operates a telecommunications business and its subsidiaries deal with various communication products and services.

The market where the company was still struggling was South Africa. Thus, it was quick to sell off a part of it and also, a business rescue plan was taken into action

Vodafone is one of the three telecom giants of Indian telecom industry. It constitutes 18.9 % of the total mobile subscriber base in the country, second only to Airtel whose share in total mobile subscribers stands at 22.23%. Vodafone caters to different requirements of consumers with postpaid as well as prepaid options. Moreover, Vodafone has been a strong competitor to Airtel when it comes to 3G services across the country. It came up with m-Pesa, a provision for hassle free transfer of money and to recharge DTH as well as mobile numbers instantly. The word “Vodafone” became familiar with high speed 3G services and Vodafone offers not only mobile connections but also 3G dongles, mobile Wi-Fi devices and wireless broadband internet services as well.

The courts found in favour for the plaintiff and they were entitled to payment, but he did not get as much as he initially anticipated. ‘The appellants were granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords, but the appellants did not take any further action’ .

The Bill confers power upon the DA, the State and Central Public Grievance Redressal Commissions to impose a lump sum penalty, including compensation to the complainant, against the designated official responsible for delivery of goods and services for their failure to deliver goods or services to which the applicant is entitled, which may extend up to fifty thousand rupees which shall be recovered from the salary of the official against whom penalty has been imposed. Such portion of the penalty imposed, shall be awarded as compensation to the appellant, by the Appellate Authority, as it may deem fit. If found guilty of any offence, disciplinary action also shall be initiated against the public servant. Which include punishment and penalty, as decided by the disciplinary authority . In the case of non-redress of complaint, the burden of proof shall be upon the GRO, who denied the request . If the appellate authorities find the grievance complained of is a part of corrupt practice, that shall be referred to the appropriate Competent Authority to take action on such corrupt practice, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .

The Vodafone Group was launched on 1 January 1985 in the UK; where it was the first cellular network. The network’s very first call was made from London to Newbury. It was later launched in Ireland in 2001. They provide a much needed service to their consumers. I’m going to focus my project mainly on Vodafone in Ireland. Vodafone is a telecommunications company providing a range of services, including voice, messaging, data and fixed broadband.

Early in the year 2016, the Tax Appeal Tribunal sitting in Lagos gave his judgment in Vodacom v FIRS case. In this case, New Skies Satellites, a non-Nigerian company based in the Netherlands, entered into a contract for the supply of bandwidth capacities with Vodacom for its use in Nigeria. The Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) assessed the transaction to VAT and issued a re-assessment notice based on the reverse charge mechanism- a system where persons subject to pay VAT are required to self-charge and remit to the FIRS in the event that the entity that rendered the relevant services failed to include VAT in the invoice it presented to the customer. Vodacom filed an appeal at the TAT challenging the re-assessment notice issued by FIRS1.

In December, 2009, it entered into a strategic financial partnership with Destimoney Enterprises Private Limited (DEPL). In February 2015, DEPL’s majority shareholder Destimoney Enterprises Limited has sold its entire shareholding to Quality Investments Holdings, which is owned by Carlyle Group, a global investment firm.