Vodafone SC hearing: week one
International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Vodafone SC hearing: week one

Vodafone’s much-anticipated India Supreme Court hearing started with a bang yesterday with a lengthy argument by the telecommunications company criticising the country’s tax authority.

The dispute has dominated headlines ever since Vodafone made the $11.2 billion purchase of a 67% stake in Indian cellular phone operator Hutchison Essar from Hong Kong's Hutchison Telecommunications in 2007.

Vodafone opened the hearing yesterday by questioning the tax authorities’ decision to slap a $2.5 billion tax bill on capital gains from the transaction.

Senior advocate, Harish Salve, representing Vodafone said that the tax department has no authority to tax the transaction as the deal took place between two foreign companies.

He added that the deal was a transfer of control of “two downstream companies by the two foreign companies and it cannot be a basis [for the tax department] to exercise jurisdiction".

Vodafone’s other legal counsel is Abhishek Singhvi, who is also a ruling Congress party spokesman.

The three-judge bench, headed by Justice SH Kapadia, then asked questions about the nature of the transaction and commented on observations made by the Bombay High Court in a previous round of the dispute.

As the case continues, Vodafone are likely to argue that since the transfer is of a capital asset situated outside India, the gains arising there from should not be liable to tax in India in the hands of the non-resident seller entity and that the Indian withholding tax provisions under section 195 of the Income Tax Act do not apply to offshore entities making offshore payments.

The authorities will disagree and say that since the transaction under consideration had a substantial nexus in India, it would result in an obligation being cast on Vodafone to deduct tax at source under section 195.

Previously, the Bombay High Court ruled that once territorial nexus is established, the provisions of section 195 would operate.

The case continues.

Follow www.internationaltaxreview.com for full coverage of the hearing.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

UK tax credit consultancy ForrestBrown also warned that advisors must get up to speed in order to support their clients
Large firms like EY risk losing staff for good if they track attendance, a prominent former management consultant for the firm has warned
Research has claimed that the net US federal income tax bills of 35 companies were negative $1.72 billion, while, in other news, Italy’s economy minister has predicted that pillar two will fail
Janet Truncale has handed two out of four global managing partner roles to defeated leadership rivals
A survey of more than 25,000 in-house lawyers reveals that embracing technology could help law firms win new business
The appeal related to deductions claimed by the Singaporean telecoms company, which was advised by PwC, on a A$5.2 billion acquisition from 2002
The latest wave of cuts follows chastening revelations regarding the ‘big four’ firm’s tax leaks scandal
UN proposals to reform the taxation of the aviation industry would lead to substantial economic cost for developing countries, argues Willie Walsh, director general of the International Air Transport Association
An anonymous litigation financier whose identity UK law firm Mishcon de Reya is said to know is allegedly covertly attacking tax transparency regulation
Silvana Van der Velde adds that thus far she has come across pillar two when it comes to joint venture agreements
Gift this article