Home       Top Rated       Submit Article     Advanced Search     FAQ       Contact Us       Lawyers in India       Law Forum     RSS Feeds     

Register your Copyright Online

We offer copyright registration right from your desktop click here for details.

Latest Articles | Articles 2014 | Articles 2013 | Articles 2012 | Articles 2011 | Articles 2010 | Articles 2009 | Articles 2008 | Articles 2007 | Articles 2006 | Articles 2000-05

Search On:Laws in IndiaLawyers Search

Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi
We provide fast, cost effective and Hassle free solution.
Contact us at Ph no: 9650499965 (Divorce Law Firm Delhi)

E-mail login                       Password
     

Free Email Sign Up

Main Categories
 Accident Law
 Arbitration
 Aviation Law
 Banking and Finance laws
 Case Laws
 Civil Laws
 Company Law
 Constitutional Law
 Consumer laws
 Contracts laws
 Criminal law
 Drug laws
 Dubai laws
 Educational laws
 Employment / Labour laws
 Environmental Law
 family law
 Gay laws and Third Gender
 Human Rights laws
 Immigration laws
 Insurance / Accident Claim
 Intellectual Property
 International Law
 Juvenile Laws
 Law - lawyers & legal Profession
 Legal Aid and Lok Adalat
 Legal outsourcing
 Media laws
 Medico legal
 Miscellaneous
 Real estate laws
 Right To Information
 Tax Laws
 Torts Law
 Woman Issues
 Workplace Equality & Non-Discrimination
 Yet Another Category

More Options
 Most read articles
 Most rated articles

Subscription
Subscribe now and receive free articles and updates instantly.

Name
Email



Copyright Registration

To Copyright Your Books, Videos, Songs, Scripts etc
Call us at: 9891244487 / or email at: admin@legalserviceindia.com
Top Law Colleges

Law Updates:

# Income-Tax
# Family law
# Company Law
# Constitutional Law
# Partnership firms
# Immigration Law
# Cyber Law
# Lok Adalat, legal Aid & PIL
# Forms
# Trademarks
# Woman issues
# Medico Legal
# Consumer laws
# Criminal laws
# Supreme Court Judgments


Published : November 30, 2011 | Author : suyash.upes
Category : Case Laws | Total Views : 20667 | Rating :

  
suyash.upes

 

Vodafone International Holdings B.V., a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act
Vs.
Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Finance and Asstt. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)


Equivalent Citation: 2009(4)BomCR258, (2008)220CTR(Bom)649,

This recent case which has come to the limelight deals with transfer of shares of an Indian Company held by a foreign company to another foreign company. Transfer of Capital Assets in India and Chargeability of transaction to tax under Income Tax Act Section 9 (1) of Income Tax Act, 1961.

Quick brief about the facts of the case: The Petitioner- the assessee- Vodafone purchased shares of a foreign company based in Cayman Islands which in turn held shares of an Indian company Hutch Essar from another foreign company (HTIL). The Respondent- the Assessing Officer, issued a show cause notice asking the assessee why it should not be treated as an assessee in default (AID) for its failure to withhold taxes at source and credit the same to the Central Government on the transaction in issue. The assessee challenged the said Show Cause Notice on the ground that the transaction in issue was a simple transfer of shares between two foreign companies and not transfer of any capital asset in India and as such, said transaction did not attract the provisions of Income Tax Act.

Question of law involved: Whether the transfer of shares between two foreign companies, resulting in extinguishment of controlling interest in the Indian Company held by a foreign company to another foreign company, amounted to transfer of capital assets in India and as such chargeable to tax in India.

Issues raised and adjudged:
It was held that, a divestment or extinguishment of right, title or interest must necessarily precede the divestment of the controlling interest and any divestment by one of any interest of enormous value in shares of high intensity would certainly amount to acquisition of enduring benefit to the other, resulting in acquisition of a capital asset in India Therefore, transaction entered upon by the Petitioner amounted to transfer of a capital asset and not merely a transfer simplicitor of controlling interest ipso facto in a corporate entity and as such chargeable to tax in India.

It was further held that any profit or gain which arose from the transfer of a group company in India has to be regarded as a profit and gains of the entity or the company which actually controls it, particularly when on facts, the flow of income or gain can be established to such controlling company. In the present case, by reason of the transfer, the income accrued not to Cayman Island Company (CGP), but to HTIL(which held CGP) and was treated as profits of HTIL, therefore, the recipient of the sale consideration was none other than HTIL and this was a consequence of divestment of its Indian interests in Hutchinson Essar Group to Petitioner, and therefore, liable for capital gains.

As per Effects Doctrine Extra-territorial operation of Section 195 of the I.T Act, it was held, that any state may impose liabilities, even upon persons not within its allegiance, for conduct outside its borders that has consequences within its borders which the State represents. Therefore, when the dominant purpose of entering into agreements between the two foreigners is to acquire the controlling interest which one foreign company held in the Indian company, by other foreign company, the transaction would certainly be subject to municipal laws of India, including the Indian Income Tax Act.

On the ground of maintainability of availability of efficacious alternative remedy Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain writ Article 226 of Constitution of India, the respondent contended that writ is not maintainable as the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy available under Income Tax Act and therefore, failure to invoke same would not entitle the petitioner to invoke writ jurisdiction. It was held that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, 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, and the impugned Orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

On grounds of Constitutional validity of provisions and non-production of vital documents the respondent contended that the petitioner has not produced vital documents that are crucial to the determination of the issue of chargeability to tax in India and therefore, 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. 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.

Ratio Decidendi:
Transaction amounting to transfer of capital assets in India, by divestment of controlling stake in an Indian Company held by a foreign company to another foreign company resulting in extinguishment of right, would attract provisions of Indian Income Tax Act.

Any profit or gain which arose from the transfer of a group company in India has to be regarded as a profit and gains of the entity or the company which actually controls its, particularly when on facts, the flow of income or gain can be established to such controlling company and as such is taxable in India.

When the dominant purpose of entering into agreements between the two foreigners is to acquire the controlling interest which one foreign company held in the Indian company, by other foreign company, the transaction would certainly be subject to municipal laws of India, including the Indian Income Tax Act as per Effects Doctrine.
Where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of.
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.

The potential investors would need to be therefore extra careful while structuring their cross-border mergers and acquisitions transactions lest they are slapped with unwarranted and unexpected tax liability from strange quarters which they have not factored in their negotiations and to minimize the chances of litigation.
**************************
# [2009]311ITR46(Bom)

Authors contact info - articles The  author can be reached at: suyash.upes@legalserviceindia.com




1 2 3 4 5
Rate this article!     Poor
Excellent    

Most viewed articles in Case Laws category
Indra Sawhney & Others Vs.Union of India
Scope of Part I of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
Bangalore Water Supply Case
ONGC v Saw Pipes
H.L.A Hart
Neha Bhasin v/s.Raj Anand Raj & Performer
Vodafone Case
K.M.Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra
Case Comment on Priyadarshini Matoo case
A Misinterpretation & Un-Called Construction Of Section 114 Of Evidence Act: Live-In-Relationship
A.K Kraipak v. Union of India
Indian Medical Association V V.P. Shantha
His Holiness Keshvananda Bharti vs State Of Kerala with reference to Agrarian Reforms in India
Post Decisional Hearing: Development through Judicial Pronouncement and case study of Canara Bank v. V.K.Awasthi, 2005 (6) SCC 231
A Case Study on R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Workmen Of Dimakuchi Tea Estate V. The Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate
Most recent articles in Case Laws category
Leopold Cafe and Stores v/s Novex Communications Pvt Ltd
Mahendra And Mahendra Paper Mills vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd
Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and Ors v. Commissioner of Police
Judgments on Bombay Rent Act
Basic Principles of Law of Injunctions in India
Mrinal Kanti Ghosh v UOI
Constitutional vires of laws relating to Organized Crime: State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shantilal Shah and Ors
A benchmark in history of the Indian Constitutional Law
Indra Sawhney & Others Vs.Union of India
Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court - Kailas & Ors. v/s State of Maharashtra and Taluka P.S
K.M.Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra
Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subash Chandra Agarwal
Afcons infrastructure and Ors. v. Cherian Verkay Construction and Ors
Right to privacy under Article 21: A Case study
A.K Kraipak v. Union of India
The administrative aspect of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India & ors.

Article Comments

Posted by aarti tripathi on May 11, 2012
nice article

Posted by priyanka on December 17, 2011
very good and informative article..thanks for posting.

Post Your Comments
Name

Email

Your comments

Note : Your email address is only visible to admin, other members / users cannot see it.

You can use following FXCodes


BOLD : [b]
Italic : [i]

[b] Legal Services India [/b] is a [i]nice website[/i].
[url= http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/ ]click here to visit.[/url]

Legal Services India is a nice website.
Click here to visit

 

Note : Currently, user comments are moderated and will be posted only after approval.



Welcome!
Please login or register a new free account.

Random Pick
Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto or any of them for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose.

Statistics
» Total Articles
1375
» Total Authors
3989
» Total Views
15549634
» Total categories
40

Law Forum


Legal Articles

Lawyers in India- Click on a link below for legal Services

lawyers in Chennai
lawyers in Bangalore
lawyers in Hyderabad
lawyers in Cochin
lawyers in Pondicherry
lawyers in Guwahati
lawyers in Nashik

lawyers in Jaipur
lawyers in New Delhi
lawyers in Dimapur
lawyers in Agra
Noida lawyers
lawyers in Siliguri

For Mutual consent Divorce in Delhi

Ph no: 9650499965
For online Copyright Registration

Ph no: 9891244487
Law Articles

lawyers in Delhi
lawyers in Chandigarh
lawyers in Allahabad
lawyers in Lucknow
lawyers in Jodhpur
Faridabad lawyers

lawyers in Mumbai
lawyers in Pune
lawyers in Nagpur
lawyers in Ahmedabad
lawyers in Surat
Ghaziabad lawyers

lawyers in Kolkata
lawyers in Janjgir
lawyers in Rajkot
lawyers in Indore
lawyers in Ludhiana
Gurgaon lawyers

TOP

India's Most Trusted Online law library
Legal Services India is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India) 2000-2016
 ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3