Diversity

The Partners and members our Firm are senior professionals with years of experience behind them. They bring the highest level of professional service to clients along with the traditions of the profession, integrity and sound ethical practices.

Our team of professionals comprise of Legal Counsels with rich experience in Civil and Criminal Law, Taxation Law, Copy Rights and Intellectual Property law. 

LEGAL WIN CONSULTING LLP: LEGAL AND TAXATION EXPERTS

experience you can trust

Our Lawyers and Tax experts offer a full range of Legal and Tax advisory to Small and Medium Enterprises, Multinational Corporations, Start-Up's, Public / Private Sector Undertakings, Family run Businesses, High Net Worth Individuals and Private Clients. 
We serve a wide range of clientele, and every client relationship is valued greatly. Each engagement benefits from the depth and breadth of our expertise
.

​​uPDATES FROM MANAGING PARTNER 

 









1) Sec. 14(1)(d) of IBC statutorily freezes ‘occupation’ of property handed over under a Joint Development Agreement

1Section 14(1)(d), when it speaks about recovery of property 'occupied', does not refer to rights or interests created in property but only actual physical occupation of property. Thus, section 14(1)(d) will apply to statutorily freeze 'occupation' that may have been handed over under a Joint Development Agreement

[Rajendra K. Bhuta v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority -Supreme Court of India , 2020 

2) 
"There is no requirement that an application is required to be filed in terms of Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act before the secondary evidence is led
​There is no requirement that an application is required to be filed in terms of Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act before the secondary evidence is led. A party to the lis may choose to file an application which is required to be considered by the trial court but if any party to the suit has laid foundation of leading of secondary evidence, either in the plaint or in evidence, the secondary evidence cannot be ousted for consideration only because an application for permission to lead secondary evidence was not filed.
"

​​​DHANPAT  VERSUS SHEO RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. &, Supreme Court of India,2020

3)Key changes in regard to Taxation of Non-Residents made as under:  
A)
 Relaxation in the 120 days Rule:

The final amendment now provides that the condition of residency with the reduced period of 120 days of stay in India, as compared to the earlier 182 days, shall apply in case of an Indian Citizen or a Person of Indian Origin, only if his total income ‘Other than Income from Foreign Sources’ exceeds Rs. 15 lakhs.

B) Clarification on Deemed Residency in India:The amended Finance Bill now states that the deeming provision of residency in India, as proposed in the original Bill, shall apply in case ofan individual, being a Citizen of India, only if his total income, ‘Other than Income from Foreign Sources’, exceeds Rs. 15 lakhs.

C).Reverting back to the Earlier Rule for ‘Not Ordinarily Resident’:

Dropping the amendment as originally proposed under the Finance Bill 2020, the amended Bill has not only reverted back to the earlier definition of ‘Not Ordinarily Resident’, but also further expanded the same to include such individuals not covered by the aforesaid relaxation of 182 days and its application in case of individuals treated as deemed residents.  

SRIPATHI RAJAGOPALAN
MANAGING PARTNER,
20-March-2020