Supreme Court of India’s Vodafone Judgment: Implications for International Investors


On January 20, 2012, the Supreme Court of India (the “Supreme Court”) delivered a landmark judgment in Vodafone International B.V. v. Union of India & Anr. ruling that the transfer of shares of a company incorporated outside India from a seller resident outside India to a buyer resident outside India is not taxable by the Indian tax authorities even if such transfer indirectly transfers an asset in India. The outcome brings to closure a fairly contentious chapter for Vodafone Group (“Vodafone”), in which the Indian tax authorities sought to recover approximately US$2.5 billion in taxes in connection with Vodafone’s indirect purchase in 2007 of a controlling stake in Hutchinson Essar Limited, one of India’s largest telecommunications services providers, from The Hutchinson Group, a Hong Kong company. The Supreme Court judgment provides clarity to international investors in structuring a variety of cross-border transactions involving India in a tax efficient manner. The following are the key points that emerge from the Supreme Court judgment for international investors looking to engage in cross-border transactions involving India:

1. Section 9(1)(i) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 which, among other things, provides for taxation of income arising from transfer of capital assets in India, does not apply to the extent such transfer occurs indirectly pursuant to a transfer of shares of a company incorporated outside India.

2. International investors may structure their investments into India through holding companies in jurisdictions such as Mauritius for both tax and commercial reasons. If a holding company was created without any commercial or business substance only to avoid tax, then the tax authorities may ignore such a holding company. Structuring transactions to achieve tax efficiency is permissible provided that the structure used is not a sham or a colorable tax avoidance device.

3. Whether a structure represents a genuine tax planning on the one hand or a sham or a colorable device to avoid tax on the other has to be determined at the threshold by looking at the transaction as a whole in the context to which it properly belongs and not by dissecting the individual parts and looking at them in isolation. The burden is on the tax authorities to ascertain the dominant purpose of a transaction and to establish that a given transaction is a sham or a colorable device designed to avoid tax.

Please see full alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© White & Case LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.