Vodafone’s journey in India has been a significant case in retrospective amendment made to tax laws. The decision made by the Supreme Court in this case and subsequently the decision made by PCA in Cairn UK case following Vodafone case amounts to a huge loss to the government as the reserve of the government depends upon the collection of tax. Tax avoidance has become a common practice today. Tax avoidance is considered as “legitimate tax planning”. Only after this case, strict provisions to govern tax evasion by non-resident companies through indirect transfers were made. Agreeing to the fact that there must be liberal tax policies in order to attract foreign investment, India need not stoop down too low to attract FDI. Moreover, tax laws in the country must be stabilized and strong tax laws must be enacted to cover these types of transactions in order to help the government. This case is a learning experience to know about indirect transfer of assets, taxability of capital gains, retrospective amendments to tax laws and clarity of tax laws in the country. Though various amendments to tax laws have been made, it has been a continuous defeat to the country regarding these offshore transfers.  This is a landmark judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court of India. It was a 3-judge bench decision consisting of Chief justice S.H Kapadia, Swatanter Kumar and K.S. Radha Krishnan. The case was originally dealt by the Bombay HC.


Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance and Anr. EQUIVALENT CITATION: 2009(4) BomCR258, (2008)220CTR(Bom)649


Vodafone International Holdings (VIH), a Dutch Company procured 100% shares in CGP Investments (Holding) Ltd a company situated in Cayman Island, for USD 11.1 billion from Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd in the year 2007. CGP, through different organizations and actions controlled 67% of Hutchison Essar Limited (HEL), an Indian Company. Vodafone got command over CGP and its downstream the subsidiaries including HEL through the acquisition. It had acquired telecom licenses to give cell communication in various circles in India starting from November 1994. In September 2007, a show-cause notice was given to the Vodafone Company by the Indian Tax Department to clarify the reason for why tax was not retained on instalments made to HTIL in connection to the above said transaction as said transaction of transfer of shares in CGP had an impact of aberrant or indirect transfer of assets in India.3


Whether the transfer of shares between two foreign companies, resulting in extinguishment of controlling interest in the Indian Company held by a foreign company, amounted to transfer of capital assets in India and whether such transaction is chargeable to tax in India?


Sec 2(14) of Income Tax Act-Capital Asset

Sec 2(24) of Income Tax Act- Definition of Income Sec 5 of Income Tax Act-Scope of total income

Sec 9 of Income Tax Act- Income deemed to accrue or arise in India Sec 45 of Income Tax Act-Capital gains

Sec 191 of Income Tax Act-Direct Payment Sec 195 of Income Tax Act-Other sums

Sec 201 of Income Tax Act-Consequences of failure to deduct or pay


The respondent contended that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy available under Income Tax Act.4 The petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction as there is a failure on part of the petitioner as they did not invoke the jurisdiction under tax law. It was held that where a statute creates a right or liability and gives a special remedy when enforced, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. In the present case, the Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an Order of assessment, therefor the order can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.


The respondent contended that the petitioner has not produced the important documents that are essential for determination of tax charges in India and thereby, the petitioner cannot challenge validity of provisions in issue. It was held that even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party, the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue.5 Therefore, when the Petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the Amendment to Sections 191 and 201 of the

I.T. Act by the Finance Act, 2008, then the same must be in context of certain facts pleaded and proved by evidence in the form of documents on record and not in vacuum or in the abstract.



Section 9 of the Act provides the formal source rule which provides for taxing gains that arise from the transfer of capital assets that are in India. In this case, Hutchison’s gain arose from the sale of shares of CGP, a capital asset located in Cayman Islands. Therefore Hutchison’s gain was not chargeable to tax in India; thereby, Vodafone BV in not required deducting tax at source under the Act.

Chapter X of the Act does not provide to tax all amounts involved in a particular transaction, which are otherwise not taxable. Before bringing any transaction for charging tax, a taxable income must arise. Therefore ordering to pay tax to amounts involved in International Transaction tantamount to imposing a penalty for entering into a transaction as no taxable income has been incurred.

It emphasized that the law restricted the courts from imposing tax liabilities on the basis of economic substance of the transaction. The legal form of the transaction was that Hutchison had transferred shares of a Cayman Island company. Since, the shares were situated in Cayman Islands, the “formal source rule” failed to capture the Hutchison gains in India’s tax net. To sum it up, Petitioner simply argued that it was not legally right to hold that Hutchison gains were taxable in India.

The issue of shares by the Vodafone to its holding company and receipt of consideration of the same is a capital receipt under the Act6. Capital receipts cannot be brought to tax unless specifically/ expressly brought to tax by the Act7. It is well settled that capital receipts do not come within the ambit of the word ‘Income’ under the Act, save when so expressly provided as in the case of Section 2 (24) (vi) of the Act. This brings capital gains chargeable under Section 45 of the Act, to tax within the meaning of the word ‘Income’.8

In this case, attention was drawn to the definition of `Income’9 in the Act which includes in its scope amounts received arising or accruing within the provisions of section 56(2) (vii)(b) of the Act. The definition applies to issue of shares to a resident in India. This order relies on the meaning of International Transaction provided in Explanation (i) to Section 92B of the Act. It is submitted that Explanation (i) to Section 92B of the Act only states that capital financing transaction such as borrowing money and/or lending money to AE would be an International Transaction. However, what is brought to tax is not the quantum of amount lent and/or borrowed but the impact on Income due to such lending or borrowing. Similarly, Explanation to Section 92B of the Act, which covers business restructuring, would only have application if said restructuring/ reorganizing impacts income. If there is any impact of income on account of business restructuring/reorganizing, then such income would be subjected to tax as and when it arises whether in present or in future.10 In this case, such a contingency does not arise as there is no impact on Income which would be chargeable to tax due to issue of shares.11


The issue of Chapter X of the Act being applicable is no longer an untouched matter because similar provision as provided in Section 92 of the Act was also provided under Section 42(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court held that the action of revenue in seeking to tax a resident in respect of profit which he would have normally made but did not make because of his close association with a non-resident. It observed that it is open to charge tax on notional profits and impose charge on the resident.12 The aforesaid provision of Section 42(2) of the 1922 Act was incorporated in its new avtar as Section 92 of the said Act. It was thus emphasized that the legislative history supports the stand of the respondent-revenue that even in the absence of actual income, a notional income can be brought to tax.13

Section 92(1) of the Act uses the word ‘Any income arising from an International Transaction’. Accordingly, we see that, the income of any party to the transaction could be subject matter to charge tax and it does not provide that the income of resident only is taxable. In case of Chapter X of the Act, the matter of real income concept has no applicability. Therefore, the difference between ALP and the contracted price would be added to the total Income.

Chapter X of the Act is a complete code by itself and not merely a machinery provision to compute the ALP14. Chapter X of the Act applies wherever the ALP is to be determined by the A.O15. The Petitioner itself had submitted to the jurisdiction of Chapter X of the Act by filing/submitting Form 3-CEB, declaring the ALP16. It is the hidden benefit in the transaction which is being charged to tax. Therefore, the charging section is inherent in Chapter X of the Act.


No express legislation on capital account transaction:

Section 92(1) of the Act states that an income from an international transaction is a condition precedent for the applicability of Chapter X. The meaning of income will not include capital receipts unless it is specifically mentioned as provided in Section 2(24)(vi) of the Act. So, capital gains to be taxed under Section 45 of the Act are deemed to be income under the Act.

Income pre requisite for applicability of Section 56(1):

For application of Section 56 of the Act , an income must arise which can be taxed. Issuing of shares at a premium is on capital account gives rise to no income.

Charge and measure of tax entirely different:

The tax can be charged only on income and in the absence of any income arising, the application of the measure of ALP to the transfer value does not arise. Chapter X of the Act provides that a transaction can be taxed only after working out the income after finding the ALP of a transaction.

No relevance of Section 92(2) in the present case: 

Section 92(2) of the Act deals with a situation where two or more AEs enter into an arrangement whereby they are to receive any benefit, service or facility. This provision is not applicable in this case as there is no situation where there is no allocation of any cost or expense between the petitioner and the holding company.


The transaction entered by the Petitioner amounts to transfer of a capital asset and not a transfer of controlling interest ipso facto in a corporate entity and is chargeable to tax in India.

It was held that any profit or gain arising from the transfer of a company in India has to be considered as a profit and gains of the company which actually owns and controls it. In this case, the income from the transfer is accrued by the HTIL and not Cayman Island Company (CGP). Therefore, the recipient was HTIL. Therefore the interest of the recipient is divested to the petitioner and hence is liable for capital gains tax.

The Effects Doctrine Extra-territorial operation of Section 195 of the I.T Act provides that any state may impose liabilities, even upon persons not within its territory, for conduct outside its borders that has consequences within the borders of its state. Hence, the dominant purpose of entering into agreement by the two foreign companies is to acquire the substantial interest and of which one foreign company is held in the Indian company the municipal laws of the country would be applicable and hence Indian Tax laws will be applied.


If the Hutchison gains were held not to be taxed in India, India would forfeit its right to tax as the country of source. Thereby the taxpayers will try to exploit the unintended loopholes in India’s tax law.

If the Hutchison gains were held taxable in India it would fortify India’s taxing rights as a source country- if you earn value from India, you shall be taxed in India. The entire value earned by HTIL “was only on account of the fruits of the investment made by HTIL in India, goodwill/brand value generated by HTIL for the Hutch brand in India, the telecom licenses granted in India, customer base in India and the prospect of future development and expansion in India17.” In the context of capital gains on company’s shares, the settled legal principle is that shares are located where the company’s share register is maintained, normally the place of its incorporation18. Rendering Hutchison gains taxable in India would entail imposing “substantial tax liabilities, after the fact, on entities that would avoid such liabilities according to this formal rule”19.


Vodafone International Holdings … vs Union Of India & Anr

CITATION-[2012] 1 SCR 573


Whether the Indian Revenue Authority can tax a sale of shares between two non-resident companies on an offshore transaction where the controlling interest of an Indian corporation is purchased on the basis of that transaction?


Piercing the corporate veil

Companies are separate legal entities that are independent from its shareholders and management. This is the foundation for company and tax laws. It is a general principle that a holding company is not liable for the acts of the subsidiary.

The Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the court to find the nature of the transaction and when doing it; it must look at the whole transaction and must not deal the elements of the transaction separately.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the transaction, the court must determine whether the transaction made primarily to evade taxes. It can be justified by piercing the corporate veil.

The Supreme Court held that strategic foreign direct investment (FDI) into India must be seen in a holistic manner.

By application of this doctrine, the Supreme Court held that the major purpose in Vodafone was to transfer the shares of CGP and not transferring the rights in HEL (situated in India). The court held that corporate can be pierced and the principal company can be held liable for the acts of the subsidiary company when it is shown that the company has misused to achieve certain wrongful objectives. 20

Tax avoidance and tax planning

The Supreme Court made a detailed difference between tax evasion and tax planning. The court held that tax planning is not illegal, illegitimate or impermissible. The debate over the validity and legality of the decision in Union of India v Azadi Bachao Andolan ((2004) 10 SCC 1)) and its departure from McDowell and Co Ltd v CTO ((1985) 3 SCC 230) on the specific issue of tax avoidance has been settled in this case.

The Court clarified that Justice Reddy’s observations extended only to artificial and colourable devices. Thereby it is wrongful to understand that mean all tax planning is illegal, illegitimate or impermissible.

Limitation Of Benefits clause.

Justice Radhakrishnan (in his concurring judgment) held that in case of absence of LOB clause in the Treaty, and in light of the existence of CBDT Circular No. 789 of 2000 and a TRC certificate, the Revenue cannot at the time of sale, disinvestment or exit from FDI in India, deny benefits to Mauritian companies by stating that the FDI was routed through a Mauritius company from somewhere else.

Tax Residency Certificate

In this case, the court held that the treaty and circular will not restrict the Revenue from denying Treaty benefits, when it is proven that the Mauritian company at the time of disposal of shares, made the transaction with intent to avoid tax. The court also referred to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed between India and Mauritius which is to track down transactions tainted by fraud and financial crimes. The court held that Mauritius is a clean jurisdiction to route investments into India and, provided the transaction is not found to illegal or colourable which was designed to evade tax.

Section 9 of the Act 

The Supreme Court explained that section 9(1)(i) gathers in one place various types of income that are deemed to accrue or arise in India. It includes: “All income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, or through or from any property in India, or through or from any asset or source of income in India, or through the transfer of a capital asset situate in India”.

“The Supreme Court noted that the words “directly or indirectly” in section 9(1)(i) of the Act refer to the income and not the transfer of a capital asset (property). It held that to apply the words “directly or indirectly” to the transfer of a capital asset (such as HEL) “would amount to changing the content and ambit of section 9(1)(i). We cannot re-write section 9(1)(i). The legislature has not used the words indirect transfer in section 9(1)(i).” It noted that, “if the word indirect is read into Section 9(1)(i), it would render the express statutory requirement of the 4th sub-clause in section 9(1)(i) nugatory”21

The court also made reference to the fact that the Direct Taxes Code Bill 2010 (DTC) proposes the taxation of offshore share transactions, which leads to the inference that indirect transfers are not presently covered by section 9(1)(i).

Transfer of HTIL’s property rights by extinguishment 

The court held that the case concerned the sale of shares and not the sale of assets. The court adopted the “look at” approach (as opposed to the “dissecting” approach) and held that the facts and circumstances of the present case must be viewed holistically. Hutchison has been part of Indian telecom business since 1994, and had been paying income tax in India.

Therefore, the transaction entered into cannot be considered sham or colourable. The court was of the view that the transaction took place only with intent to invest in India and not evade tax. The court also held that non-compete rights and the use of the Hutch brand were not property rights and it could not be subject to tax in India.

Withholding tax obligations: sections 195 and 163 of the Act

The transaction entered into by the companies is between two non-resident entities and was executed outside India. Consideration was also passed outside India. The court held that when a payment is made between two non-residents situated outside India, then the transaction has no nexus with the underlying assets in India. Therefore, Vodafone was not legally obliged to respond to the section 163 notice issued which declares a purchaser of an asset as a “representative assessee”.


The tax is levied on the basis of the source and the source is the location where the sale takes and not where the product is derived or purchased from.

HTIL and VIH are foreign companies and the sale takes place outside India, so the source of revenue is outside India. It could be taxable only when this trade is protected by legislation. The tax laws must be strictly construed and tax can be laid only when the language of the statute unambiguously states so. The provision for charging income tax must not be expanded to impose a tax burden which would otherwise be non-taxable. Therefore indirect movement of capital assents cannot be included by expansion of the provision. The present transaction was carried out between two non-resident persons in a contract conducted outside India where the consideration was also rendered outside India and VIH is therefore not legally obligated to respond to the notice referred to in section 163 relating to the purchaser’s care as a representative measure.

The selling of HTIL’s CGP shares to Vodafone or VIH amount to transfer of capital assets under the scope of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act and therefore not chargeable under capital gains tax on all rights and entitlements resulting from the shareholder agreement, etc., which form an integral part of CGP ‘s shares. The order of High Court of the demand of nearly Rs.12, 000 crores by way of capital gains tax would amount to imposing capital punishment for capital investment and it lacks authority of law and therefore is quashed.


1. On bringing the retrospective amendment which states that any income which arises either directly or indirectly by means of or by reason of transfer of assets in India shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India and can be

2. The explanation inserted by finance Act 2012 to sec. 9(1)(1) in its 2nd exception provides that CGP Investments is a 100 % subsidiary company of Hutchison company and is wholly controlled by the latter company. Therefore the exception provided in the explanation is not applicable and hence capital gain arising through sale is taxable at source.


The SC through its landmark judgment has removed certain uncertainties revolving around the imposition of taxes in the country. By means of this verdict certain principles have been established and recognized by the SC including:

  • Principles relating to tax policies and plans
  • The validity of tax avoidance by providing the taxpayers the right to reduce their liabilities to a maximum extent by legitimate arrangement of their income and business affairs provided nothing contrary to such act is specified in the enactments.
  • The establishment of corporate structures by multinational companies for business and commercial purpose.
  • The application of the principle of lifting of the corporate veil in all transactions done with an objective of evading taxes.
  • Lastly the need for a holistic view or approach when dealing with cases involving companies having made investments in tax neutral countries. It further urges to avoid the misconception that presence of corporate structures in tax free countries is necessarily a scheme for avoiding tax.

In short, the SC through its judgment has distinguished tax avoidance from tax evasion and along with certain other significant principles recognized tax avoidance as a legitimate activity while penalizing tax evasion, further highlighting its view on the need for a legitimate tax planning.


The judgment pronounced by the SC in this case has been to subject to severe criticisms. The SC is loathed for providing such a verdict. It is argued that SC has set a precedent that brings into jeopardy thousands of crores of potential was also pointed out that tax avoidance through artificial devices is now a days very much prevalent in the industry and many large firms gain huge sums of money through such schemes. It was opined that the judgment in McDowell though reverted by 2 other decisions (Azadi Bachao Andholan and Wallfort) has dealt with the issue in the right perspective. The Mauritius companies are considered to be ‘post box companies’ and its remarked that the benign attitude of the tax authorities has led to a blatant evasion of taxes. The SC is blamed for not setting right the mistake it made by transgressing the McDowell judgment in the Vodafone verdict. The SC verdict is condemned on the basis that despite being aware of the transaction’s true nature as being transfer of Indian asset the SC has shown ignorant behaviour by providing such a verdict. This act of SC is viewed as a welcoming gesture for the foreign companies to evade taxes in India, jeopardizing crores and crores of potential revenue to the country and the attitude of courts towards such artificial tax evading devices. This judgment as a contract to the judgment in the 2G scam is considered to be arbitrary in nature.


1. M/S Shri Vishnu Eatables (India) … vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income … on 3 October, 2016

“It is necessary for the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of objection to applicability of chapter X, if raised by the assessee, before referring the transaction to the TPO as it is a basic issue and would prevent loss of man hours on both sides in computing the ALP if it is finally concluded that Chapter X is not applicable.”22[3]

2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Mumbai

Exind Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Ito 6(2)(4), Mumbai on 7 November, 2019 It was held that the Vodafone case and CBDT Circular was not applicable in this case.

3. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Mumbai

Income Tax Officer-1(3) (2), … vs Singhal General Traders Private … on 24 February, 2020

“The premium on share issue was on account of a capital account transaction and does not give rise to income and hence, not liable to transfer pricing adjustment.”23

4. Allahabad High Court

Rakesh Mahajan vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 4 December, 2019

“The legal relationship between a holding company and WOS is that they are two distinct legal persons and the holding company does not own the assets of the subsidiary and, in law, the management of the business of the subsidiary also vests in its Board of Directors.”24

5. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Delhi

M/S. New Delhi Television Ltd., … vs Dcit, New Delhi on 14 July, 2017

“If an actual controlling Non-Resident Enterprise (NRE) makes an indirect transfer through “abuse of organisation form/legal form and without reasonable business purpose” which results in tax avoidance or avoidance of withholding tax, then the Revenue may disregard the form of the arrangement or the impugned action through use of Non-Resident Holding Company, re-characterize the equity transfer according to its economic substance and impose  the tax on the actual controlling Non-Resident Enterprise.”25[4]


The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands, held that an amendment to Indian tax laws was in violation India and the Netherlands agreement.

The international arbitration proceeding was initiated by Vodafone International Holdings

B.V. (VIH or Vodafone) against the government of India regarding the retrospective amendment made to Indian tax

Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) held that the imposition of taxation through a retrospective amendment to domestic tax laws for imposition of tax, was in violation of “fair and equitable treatment” provided under the Agreement between the Republic of India (India) and the Kingdom of Netherlands (Netherlands). Moreover, any attempt to enforce tax demand on Vodafone would amount to breach of international obligations.

The objective of the agreement is for Promotion and Protection of Investments (India- Netherland BIT). This award does not mark the end of dispute as the Indian Government has the opportunity to challenge it before the High Court of Singapore.

The full text of the arbitration award is not in public domain. But it is known that the imposition of a tax liability based on a retrospective amendment is held to be breach of fair and equitable treatment laid down in Article 4(1) of the India-Netherland BIT.

Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled that the demand made by India for Rs 22,100 crore by retrospective amendment as capital gains and withholding of imposition of tax for a 2007 deal on Vodafone Company was breaching the provision of agreement regarding fair and equitable treatment.

Recently, the Indian government has challenged the arbitration award in Singapore Court. The government is of the opinion that the matter of taxation is not covered under the treaty and taxation is a sovereign right of the country.


Cairn UK Holdings Limited, a company incorporated in the U.K. (Cairn UK), had a wholly- owned subsidiary, Cairn India Holdings Limited, a company incorporated in Jersey (Cairn Jersey). Cairn Jersey owned subsidiaries in India. In the year 2006, Cairn UK transferred its entire shareholding of Cairn Jersey to Cairn India. Subsequently, Cairn India acquired the entire business of the Cairn group in India.

In 2014, pursuant to a survey action carried out at the premises of Cairn India, the Indian income-tax authorities was of the view that the transfer of shareholding in Cairn Jersey had the effect of transferring the business in India and therefore, in view of the retrospective amended income-tax laws, Cairn UK was liable to pay capital gain tax in India. This action was challenged by Cairn UK and is currently sub-judice before the High Court of Delhi in India. While the proceedings were ongoing in India, Cairn group also initiated arbitration proceedings against the Indian Government under Article 9 of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for Promotion and Protection of Investments (India-UK BIT).


The “Doctrine of Stare Decisis,” as prevalent in common law legal systems. It means “to abide by the precedents and not to disturb settled points.” There is no similar doctrine in civil law systems or under International Law. The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) provides that the award shall be final and binding upon the parties to the dispute. In absence of any prevalent rule of binding precedent of earlier awards, the international arbitration tribunals, functioning under ICSID and UNCITRAL, do consider previous awards to have a persuasive value.

Whether the Vodafone arbitral award would have any persuasive value in arbitration proceedings of Cairn UK would depend upon the factual matrix in both the cases.

Both cases involved indirect transfer of Indian assets prior to retrospective amendment in 2012 coming into effect.

Thereby the case was decided in favor of Cairn UK and it was not liable for capital gains tax.


The government has got excessive flak for retaining India’s “retrospective” tax on asset transfers after it recently lost a case against Vodafone in an international arbitration court. Two broad critiques are important to note.

1. Governments should never make tax changes with retrospective

2. Tax laws must be stable in order to attract foreign (or even domestic) investment.

3. Vodafone must have been aware that asset transfers in India would attract capital gains By shifting the relevant jurisdiction to a tax haven, it seems to have got a lower price from Hutchison, a majority owner of the telecommunications company. Therefore, the objective appears to be a case of tax avoidance by using a grey area in Indian tax law.

Professionals have said that there is a need for clarity and certainty in tax laws to attract foreign investments. A liberal tax policy would attract Foreign Direct Investment into India. Some professionals say that the SC could have considered this issue and that is the reason why the decision is in favour of the foreign investor (Vodafone).

The arbitration tribunal also held that the terms of the agreement was not complied by India and it is established that India has contravened the provisions of the agreement. Therefore, the government must stop taking measures to recover tax from Vodafone.


In 2012, the government of India changed the Supreme Court’s decision by proposing an Amendment to the Finance Act, which gave the power to Income Tax Department to retrospectively tax such deals.


Retrospective taxation gives the state a power to make a rule on taxing certain products, items or services and deals and levy tax on companies even before the date the Act was passed.

Most of the countries use this method to rectify any gaps in their taxation laws that existed and allowed companies to take advantage of such loopholes. Many countries have retrospectively charged tax on companies.

Retrospective amendments are generally given to taxation laws to “clarify” the previously existing laws. It ends up hindering companies which interpreted the rules, knowingly or unknowingly in a different way. These retrospective amendments had been criticised by various investors as, this type of change in laws would affect foreign fund flow into India.

In this case, the Parliament passed the amendment to the Finance Act in 2012, by retrospective effect and subsequently made Vodafone liable for tax payment. Thereby, this case was called ‘retrospective taxation case’.


The onus to pay taxes fell on Vodafone after the government enacted the retrospective amendments. This amendment was criticized by investors globally. The amendment was held to be a badly drafted law as it had affected to nullify the decision of the highest court of the Nation. Following such criticisms India tried to settle matters amicably with Vodafone but all its attempts faced failure.

Does the legislature have the right to declare any decision of the court of law to be void or of no effect?

In Shri Prithvi cotton mills limited and another v. Brouch Borough Municipality and others 6 1969(2) SCC 283 the court remarked that even if the legislature has competence it cannot merely pass a law to which the verdict of the court shall not bind as such an act is a tantamount to reversing the decision of the court by exercise of judicial power which the legislative authority does not possess. A court’s decision can only be altered when unless it is fundamentally incorrect.

In Cauvery water disputes Tribunal, a constitutional bench held that legislature is authorized to change the basis of the verdict and thus the law in general affecting a class of persons at large but the legislature cannot bring any laws overriding the court’s decision such that it affects the rights and liabilities of an individual person.

Similarly, in State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala and another 9 (2014)12 SCC 696 the court held that as per the doctrine of separation of powers enriched in the constitution all the 3 organs are independent and thus a law can be set aside only when it breaches the principles of equality as enriched in the article 14 of the constitution. Further it declared that the HC and SC are empowered to determine the validity of any law of the legislature.

From the above decisions its clear that the legislature cannot bring into effect any law which overrides court’s verdict and affects the rights of an individual alone as in the landmark case of Vodafone. But it has the right to effect laws affecting a class of people in general.

As the Supreme Court decided in favor of Vodafone, subsequent amendments to the Act were brought in by the legislative authorities to reverse the judgment. The Act was amended such that it provides for the following:


SECTION 9: it provides that the following income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India:

All income arising directly or indirectly

  • Through any business connection in India or
  • From or through any property in India or
  • Through any asset or source of Income in India or
  • Through the transfer of capital asset situate in

The following explanations 4, 5, 6 and 7 was inserted through Finance Act 2012 to section 9(1)(1).

Explanation 4: it clarifies that the word “through” shall mean and include and shall be deemed to have always included “by means of”, “in consequence of” or “by reason of”.

Explanation 5: through this it is clarified that an asset or capital asset being shares or interest in a company or entity registered or incorporated outside India shall be deemed to have been situated in India, if the share or interest derives, directly or indirectly, its value substantially from the assets located in India.

But in order to make explanation 5 operational the Finance Act 2015 provided certain clarifications:

Explanation 6: For the purpose of this clause, it is hereby declared that-

1. Substantial – any share or interest of a foreign company shall be deemed to derive its value substantially from the assets situated in India, if on specified date the value of Indian assets-

    • Exceeds the amount of 10cr rupees; and
    • Represents at least 50% of all the assets owned by the company or

2. Value of asset– the value of the asset shall be fair market value of such asset without reduction of liabilities, if any in respect of the

3. Specified date– it is the date on which the accounting period of the company or entity ends preceding the date of transfer. If on the other hand the book value as on date of transfer of the assets exceeds at least 15% of book value as on the last balance sheet date preceding the date of transfer, than instead of the date mentioned above the date shall be the specified date of valuation.

4. Mode of determining FMV: the fair market value will be determined as per the rules prescribed.

5. Taxation on proportional basis: the capital gains arising out of the transfer of shares of assets located outside India of any company registered outside India will be taxed proportionally as specified in the

Explanation 7 provides for certain exceptions; they are as follows:

Exemption in case foreign company or entity (whose share or interest get transferred) directly owns Indian assets

Exemption shall be available to the transferor of a share of, or interest in, a foreign entity if the transferor (along with its associated enterprises), at any time in the twelve months preceding the date of transfer,

a. Neither holds the right of control or management of such foreign company or entity;

b. Nor holds voting power or share capital or interest exceeding 5 per cent of the total voting power or total share capital of such foreign company or entity;

Exemption in case foreign company or entity (whose share or interest get transferred) indirectly owns Indian assets

 In case the transfer is of shares or interest in a foreign entity which does not hold the Indian assets directly then the exemption shall be available to the transferor if the transferor (along with its associated enterprises), at any time in the twelve months preceding the date of transfer-

a. Neither holds the right of management or control in relation to such foreign company or the entity

b. Nor holds any rights in such company which would entitle it to either exercise control or management of the company or entity that directly owns the assets situated in India or

c. Nor entitle it to voting power exceeding 5 percent of total voting power of the company or entity that directly owns the assets situated in India.

Impact of the explanations on the final verdict:

From explanation 4 added it can be deduced that any income which arises either directly or indirectly by means of or by reason of transfer of assets in India shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India and is taxable in the hands of Hutchison company, Hong Kong.

Similarly, explanation 5 brings within its scope the transfer of shares of CGP investments, Mauritius being a company incorporated outside India. It provides that the shares are situated in India as such and shares derive its substantial value from the business of a company located in India.

This way through such amendments the coverage of section 9(1)(1) has been increased retrospectively to include indirect transfers.

Impact of the exemptions given in Explanation 7:

As the Vodafone case revolves around indirect transfers the second exemption provided is of importance. From the second exemption it can be seen that to be relieved from tax burden in case of transfer of shares of a foreign entity, here which is shares of CGP Investments, Mauritius, which indirectly holds Indian assets the transferor or the seller in the given case being Hutchison, Hong Kong must not manage, control or hold any rights which may provide for such control over the foreign entity whose shares are being transferred i.e., CGP Investments.

But, CGP Investments being a 100 % subsidiary company of Hutchison, Hong Kong is completely controlled by the latter and thus, Hutchison does not come within the scope of this exception. Hence, any capital gain arising from sale of the shares of CGP Investments is taxable at source in its hands.

Thus, in a way it can be concluded that the amendments brought about through the finance act 2015 become rationally comprehensive in budget 2012. Thereby, through such amendments the coverage of section 9(1)(1) has been increased retrospectively to include indirect transfers to cancel the effect of the SC verdict.


“ capital asset” means property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include:

(i) Any stock- in- trade, consumable stores or raw materials held for the purposes of his business or profession;

(ii) For personal effects, that is to say, movable property (including wearing apparel and furniture, but excluding jewellery) held for personal use by the assessee or any member of his family dependent on him.

(iii) Agricultural land in India, not being land situate-

(iv) 6 per cent Gold Bonds, 1977, or 7 per cent Gold Bonds, 1980, or National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980, issued by the Central Government;

(v) Special Bearer Bonds, 1991, issued by the Central Government;

(vi) Gold Deposit Bonds issued under the Gold deposit Scheme,1999.


Both the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court held in this case that “controlling interest” is not a capital asset. The Finance Bill added the following Explanation:

The following explanation was added to the existing provision

Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that

1. ‘property’ includes and shall be deemed to have always included

2. Any rights in or in relation to an Indian company,

3. Including rights of management or control or any other rights whatsoever”

Therefore, as per the amendment , the rights of the Hutchison Hong Kong in Indian company shall be included in the term capital asset under section 2(14) including the right of management and control (i.e.,) right to appoint directors , right to access to hutch brand in India and non-competing agreement . Hence, in this case the capital asset in India has been transferred by Hong Kong to Vodafone.


Transfer”, in relation to a capital asset, includes, (i)the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or

(ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein; or

(iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law; or

(iv) in a case where the asset is converted by the owner thereof into, or is treated by him as, stock- in- trade of a business carried on by him, such conversion or treatment; or

(v) any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of TOPA Act ; or

(viii) Any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a co- operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling the enjoyment of, any immovable property.

The following explanation was added to the existing provision

For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that “transfer” includes and shall be deemed always to have included,

  • Disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or
  • Creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally, voluntarily or involuntarily,
  • By way of an agreement (whether entered into in India or outside India) or otherwise,
  • Notwithstanding that such transfer of rights has been characterised as being effected or dependent upon or flowing from the transfer of a share or shares of a company incorporated outside India.”

Therefore, as per amendment, in this case, the transfer made by Hutchison Hong Kong to Vodafone is of the rights of Indian company including rights of management and control, as it has by transferring the shares of CGP Mauritius, disposed of or parted with the rights of the Indian company and through indirect means, created interest of Vodafone in Indian company. It has done this by way of agreement .Transfer of rights take place by way of transfer of shares by a company incorporated in Mauritius.


(1) Any person responsible for paying to a non- resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any interest shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income- tax thereon at the rates in force.

Explanation 2 has been inserted in section 195(1) to clarify the obligation to comply with section 195(1) and to make deduction thereunder applies and shall be deemed to have always applied and extends and shall be deemed to have always extended to all persons, residents, non-residents, whether or not the non- resident has: –

(i) A residence or place of business or business connection in India.

(ii) Any other presence in any manner whatsoever in India.

Therefore as per amendment, the presence of Vodafone establishment in India or the residence or place of business of Vodafone or its business connection in India is not necessary for deduction under section 195 but Vodafone had sufficient nexus in India.


Retrospective amendments are amendments which have backwards operation i.e., they come into effect from a past date. In India the finance minister has recognized the power to legislate retrospective laws and amendments. But the question as to the constitutional legitimacy of such amendments is a debatable question; though it is held valid in certain situations majorly it is held to be inconsistent. Thus, as a check on such amendments their use is restricted only to exceptional cases.Vodafone was considered to be one such exceptional case were the amendments introduced in Finance act 2012 were given effect from the past date. It was a revolutionary but a clever move made by the GOI to tax the Vodafone company which faced severe criticism from the global investors. The arbitration also held it to be violative of the India-Netherlands BIT.

The Senior advocate and architect behind Vodafone’s win Harish Salve opined his view on the retrospective amendments being a crusher of India’s image in the minds of the overseas investors and citizens. He criticized the instability shown by our government. He stated that the prosperity of the country depends upon the economic and political institutions of the country, on their stability and transparency.

Hence, though the government is granted the power to legislate laws and amendments with retrospective effect, its scope is restricted to exceptional cases and so before making any retro operative law consideration of its necessity, applicability and effects by the government is vital.


Vishnupriya. B | 4th year B.B.A.LL. B(Hons) SASTRA Deemed to be University. Thirumalaisamudram | [email protected]

Abirami. A. B | 4th year B.B.A LL. B (Hons) SASTRA Deemed to be University. Thirumalaisamudram | [email protected]

Nithya Parvathy.RG

Soundarya .A.



4 Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna & Ors (1986) 4 SCC 537

5 Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April,1968 AIR 1413, 1968 SCR (3) 862

6 Bombay High court Judgment para 14(f)

7 Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 February, 2001

8 Section 45 Income Tax Act

9 Section 2(24) (xvi) Income tax Act

10 Bombay High court Judgment para 13(e)

11 Bombay High court Judgment para 16(i)

12 Mazagaon Dock Ltd. V. CIT [1988] 34 ITR 368

13 Taxation of notional income: a comparison of tax regimes-Manu Patra

14 Bombay High Court Judgment para 18(f)

15Bombay High Court Judgment para 6(g)3

16 Bombay High Court Judgment para 18(b)

17 Writ Petition No. 1325 of 2010, decision delivered on September 8, 2010 paragraph 54

18 Brassard v. Smith 39 (1925) AC 371 as quoted in paragraph 95 of the Judicial    Opinion

19 Weisbach, David A. 2002. “An Economic Analysis of Anti-Tax-Avoidance Doctrines”

20 United States v. Bestfoods [141 L Ed 2d 43: 524 US 51 (1998)]

21 Victory for Vodafone in Indian Supreme Court: the final conclusion or another twist in the tale? by Aditi Mukundan and Mansi Seth, Nishith Desai Associates

22 Judgment para 16

23 Judgment para 7

24 Judgment para 68

25 Judgment para 5.12

More Under Income Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

April 2021