Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. UOI (Supreme Court)

Cayman Island is a British Overseas Territory consisting of three islands in the Western Caribbean Sea. It is used as a tax haven for avoiding tax by many India and Foreign Companies - Editor

Transfer of shares of foreign company by non-resident to non-resident does not attract Indian tax even if object is to acquire Indian assets held by the foreign company

A Cayman Island company called CGP Investments held 52% of the share capital of Hutchison Essar Ltd, an Indian company engaged in the mobile telecom business in India. The shares of CGP Investments were in turn held by another Cayman Island company called Hutchison Telecommunications. The assessee, a Dutch company, acquired from the second Cayman Islands company, the shares in CGP Investments for a total consideration of US $ 11.08 billion. The AO issued a show-cause notice u/s 201 in which he took the view that as the ultimate asset acquired by the assessee were shares in an Indian company, the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source u/s 195 while making payment to the vendor. This notice was challenged by a Writ Petition but was dismissed by the Bombay High Court. In appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the AO to first pass a preliminary order of jurisdiction which the AO did. This order was challenged by the assessee by a Writ Petition which was dismissed by the High Court (329 ITR 126 (Bom). On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:

(By the Court)

“Tax Planning” is Permissible

(i) The department’s argument that there is a conflict between Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC) & McDowell 154 ITR 148 (SC) and that Azadi Bachao is not good law is not acceptable. While tax evasion through the use of colourable devices and by resorting to dubious methods and subterfuges is not permissible, it cannot be said that all tax planning is impermissible;

Transaction was not a Sham

(ii) In the taxation of a Holding Structure the burden at the threshold is on the Revenue to establish abuse in the sense of tax avoidance in the creation and/or use of such structure(s). The Revenue may invoke the “substance over form” principle or “piercing the corporate veil” test only after it is able to establish that the transaction is a sham or tax avoidant (e.g. structures used for circular trading or round tripping or to pay bribes) or if the Holding Structure entity has no commercial or business substance and has been interposed only to avoid tax. A strategic foreign direct investment coming to India should be seen in a holistic manner and keeping in mind certain factors like the period of business operations in India etc. On facts, the Hutchison structure was in place since 1994 and could not be said to be created as a sham or tax avoidant. The holding companies were not a “fly by night” operator or short time investor;

No “look through”

(iii) The Revenue’s argument that u/s 9(1)(i) it can “look through” the transfer of shares of a foreign company holding shares in an Indian company and treat the transfer of shares of the foreign company as equivalent to the transfer of the shares of the Indian company on the premise that s. 9(1)(i) covers direct and indirect transfers of capital assets is not acceptable. S. 9(1)(i) (unlike the DTC Bill, 2010) does not use the word “indirect transfer”;

Shares are only at Registered Office

(iv) The argument that CGP, the intervened entity, had no business or commercial purpose and that its situs was not in the Cayman Islands but in India (where the assets were) is also not acceptable. The situs of the shares of a company is where the registered office is;

Capital Share fall is not Asset Sale

(v) The High Court’s finding that, applying the “nature and character of the transaction” test, the transfer of the CGP share was not adequate in itself to achieve the object of consummating the transaction between HTIL and VIH and that there was a transfer of other “rights and entitlements” which were “capital assets” is not correct because the transaction was one of “share sale” and not an “asset sale”. It had to be viewed from a commercial and realistic perspective. As it was not a case of sale of assets on itemized basis, the entire structure, as it existed, ought to have been looked at holistically. A transfer of shares lock, stock and barrel cannot be broken up into separate individual components, assets or rights such as right to vote, right to participate in company meetings, management rights, controlling rights, control premium, brand licences and so on as shares constitute a bundle of rights. The sum of US$ 11.08 bn was paid for the “entire package” and it was not permissible to split the payment and consider a part of it towards individual items (Mugneeram Bangur 57 ITR 299 (SC) followed);