Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 570 views

    Analysis of Vodafone Case

    Uploaded by

    Rinni Jain
    The key issues in the case are the taxability of capital gains arising from the transaction, the applicability of withholding tax provisions, and whether Hutch Essar can be considered a representative assessee. Vodafone argues that no capital asset was transferred in India and the transaction occurred between non-residents outside of India, so any capital gains are not taxable in India. The IT Department argues there was a business connection in India through the FIPB approval. Judicial precedents have conflicting views on whether controlling interest constitutes a separate capital asset. Vodafone also argues withholding tax is only applicable if the income is taxable in India. The IT Department considers Vodaf

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Analysis of Vodafone Case

    Uploaded by

    Rinni Jain
    570 views13 pages
    The key issues in the case are the taxability of capital gains arising from the transaction, the applicability of withholding tax provisions, and whether Hutch Essar can be considered a representative assessee. Vodafone argues that no capital asset was transferred in India and the transaction occurred between non-residents outside of India, so any capital gains are not taxable in India. The IT Department argues there was a business connection in India through the FIPB approval. Judicial precedents have conflicting views on whether controlling interest constitutes a separate capital asset. Vodafone also argues withholding tax is only applicable if the income is taxable in India. The IT Department considers Vodaf

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The key issues in the case are the taxability of capital gains arising from the transaction, the applicability of withholding tax provisions, and whether Hutch Essar can be considered a representative assessee. Vodafone argues that no capital asset was transferred in India and the transaction occurred between non-residents outside of India, so any capital gains are not taxable in India. The IT Department argues there was a business connection in India through the FIPB approval. Judicial precedents have conflicting views on whether controlling interest constitutes a separate capital asset. Vodafone also argues withholding tax is only applicable if the income is taxable in India. The IT Department considers Vodaf

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    570 views13 pages

    Analysis of Vodafone Case

    Uploaded by

    Rinni Jain
    The key issues in the case are the taxability of capital gains arising from the transaction, the applicability of withholding tax provisions, and whether Hutch Essar can be considered a representative assessee. Vodafone argues that no capital asset was transferred in India and the transaction occurred between non-residents outside of India, so any capital gains are not taxable in India. The IT Department argues there was a business connection in India through the FIPB approval. Judicial precedents have conflicting views on whether controlling interest constitutes a separate capital asset. Vodafone also argues withholding tax is only applicable if the income is taxable in India. The IT Department considers Vodaf

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 13

    BACKGROUND

    On 11 February 2007, Vodafone NL acquired 67% stake in Hutch Essar India (52% from HTIL & call option for 15% stake from resident Indians) for US$ 11.1 billion The transaction was expected to realize an estimated before tax gain of US$ 9.6 billion to HTIL In this respect, conditional approval was granted by FIPB to Vodafone stipulating that there should be compliance and observance of applicable laws and regulations in India including tax obligations

    BACKGROUND
    Thereby, Hutchison International incorporated in Hongkong

    sold its SPV in Cayman Islands CGP Investments to Vodafone. Vodafone got controlling interest in Hutch Essar, India on account of share acquisition of CGP (situated outside India) from a non resident In connection with the transaction, the Indian tax authorities issued notice to Vodafone asking Vodafone as to why it should not be treated as an assessee in default for not withholding taxes on its payments to the Hutch Group. Subsequently, Vodafone filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the notice before the Bombay HC.

    Key tax issues under challenge


    Taxability of capital gains Whether sale of shares of a foreign company between two non residents will result in capital gains tax in India

    Withholding tax Whether provisions of s.195 apply to nonresident acquirer of shares for withholding tax on payment

    Representative assessee Can Indian subsidiary be regarded as a representative assessee of the non resident seller

    Event milestones
    February 2007 December 2008 January 2009 Acquisition of Hutch Essar by Vodafone Bombay HC decision dismissing Vodafone's plea Supreme Court dismisses SLP filed by Vodafone

    May 2010
    July 2010 Current status

    IT Department has issued showcause notice with its final order


    Vodafone moves Bombay HC against the IT Department order SC rules transfer of shares of a foreign company that indirectly held underlying Indian assets not taxable

    TAXABILITY OF CAPITAL GAINS


    LEGAL BASIS Sec 9(1): Income is deemed to accrue or arise in India; Through transfer of capital asset situated in India; or Through or from any business connection in India

    IT Departments' argument
    Capital asset: The acquisition of one share in CGP by Vodafone NL was a consequence of purchasing interest in the Indian telecom business which encompasses a bundle of rights in India and the transfer of share is incidental to all such rights. Business connection: FIPB approval was mandatory and was a condition precedent to the SPA which \ indicated that this transaction had nexus with India References made to India in the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) Due diligence of Hutch Essar India was conducted by Ernst & Young

    TAXABILITY OF CAPITAL GAINS


    Vodafones stand
    Taxation of capital gains based on economic nexus will

    quadruplicate taxation in various jurisdictions like Mauritius, Cayman Islands, Hongkong and India There are no specific look through provisions in Indian law to tax non residents for transactions held outside India. For example, look through provisions in certain countries tax capital gains on transfer of shares of companies owning immovable properties in that country FIPB approval was not for the acquisition of 52% and FIPB approval was obtained for the 15% stake in which call options were obtained from the Indian owners and the ownership of the same is not transferred to Vodafone

    TAXABILITY OF CAPITAL GAINS


    Analysis The Bombay High Court while dismissing Vodafones plea has held that, there was apparently an extinguishment of rights and relinquishment by the transfer of controlling interest in the Indian company which constitutes a transfer It has also held that the shares in the Cayman company were merely the mode or the vehicle to transfer the assets situated in India The Supreme Court while dismissing Vodafones petition did not comment on the taxability of the transaction However, the Supreme Court has directed Vodafone to approach the revenue authorities for initially and then approach the High Court if the authorities answer the jurisdictional facts negatively It can also be viewed that the provisions of section 9 are wide enough and the look through provisions for transactions happening outside India involving capital assets situated in India are inbuilt in it

    > > >

    >

    Judicial precedents Favouring Vodafone: Sale of shares an isolated transaction, not a business connection (R.D. Agarwal & Co 56 ITR 20(SC)) Against Vodafone: Controlling interest not a separate capital asset distinct from shares (Mahadeo Ram Kumar 166 ITR 477 (Cal))

    WITHHOLDING OF THE TAXSECTION 195


    Sec 195: Any person responsible for paying any sum to a nonresident which is chargeable to tax, shall deduct tax thereon

    LEGAL BASIS

    REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE
    Representative assessee includes any person : who has any business connection with the non resident who has acquired a capital asset in India Normally a representative assessee can only be a person in India. In this case, since the seller was a non-resident, HTIL was not liable to capital gains tax. Therefore, IT department issued notice to the Vodafone NL treating it as assessee in default for not withholding tax and Hutch Essar India treating it as a Representative assessee i.e. agent of Hutchison International However, in this case as no capital asset is acquired in India the extra territorial application has to be analyzed

    Issue

    IT Department

    Vodafone

    Legal analysis

    Taxability of capital gains

    By virtue of sale of shares of CGP, Vodafone indirectly acquired controlling interest in an Indian company and hence the transfer gave rise to capital gain taxable in India There is a business connection in India as FIPB approval was required

    No transfer or sale of shares/assets in India Therefore, capital gains not taxable in India No prior FIPB approval was required to acquire 52% and FIPB approval was obtained for the 15% stake in which call options were obtained and the ownership of the same is not transferred to Vodafone Taxable presence in India is required and sec 195 does not have extra-territorial jurisdiction.

    Sec 9(1): Income deemed to accrue in India from any business connection in India or through transfer of capital asset in India Capital asset situated outside India and sale of shares is not an business connection Controlling interest not a separate capital asset distinct from shares

    Withholding tax u/s sec 195

    Show cause notice to Vodafone to show cause as to why Vodafone should not be treated as an assessee in default (AID) in respect of failure to deduct tax on the capital gain arising on such transfer Sec 195 applies to any person and Vodafone should have obtained NIL withholding tax certificate Notice issued to Hutch Essar, India to show cause as to why it should not be treated as representative assessee Hutch Essar is a representative assessee with respect to the withholding tax obligation of Vodafone, Netherlands

    Sec 195 applicable only if income is taxable in India No mandatory requirement to obtain NIL withholding tax certificate if income not taxable in India Sec 201 amended by Finance Bill 2008 to cover failure to withhold tax in the scope of AID w.e.f 1 Jun 02 Representative assessee shall have business connection with non resident; or A resident or non resident who has acquired a capital asset in India

    Representative assessee

    Hutch Essar is not a party to the transaction and cannot be treated as a representative assessee Hutch Esaar has no transaction with non resident

    You might also like