Vodafone SC hearing: Week seven

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Vodafone SC hearing: Week seven

Week seven of the Supreme Court hearing saw Vodafone’s counsel conclude his case by arguing that section 195 of the Income Tax Act cannot be applicable to taxpayers who do not have any presence in the country.

Harish Salve contended that the words “any person” contained in section 195 should be construed “sensibly”. He argued that enforcement of this provision would be impossible without an Indian presence.

Salve added that if the court were to rule against Vodafone on the basic question of chargeability, it could be on three grounds: lifting of corporate veil; transfer of underlying assets in India; or relinquishment of rights in India.

Justice Swatanter Kumar asked whether making a payment which resulted in providing control over an Indian company could create presence in India. Salve responded by saying that merely because the recipient has a tax presence or income chargeable to tax in India, a payer who has no tax presence in India cannot be obliged to deduct tax. He stated that any other construction of section 195 would mean that the responsibility to deduct tax would be cast on the principal officer of a non-resident who has no presence in India.

Tough questions

Salve’s 16th and final day of arguments saw him face numerous questions from the three judge bench, including questions on the representations made by Hutchison Telecommunications International Limited, the seller entity based in Cayman Islands, to its shareholders and to other regulatory authorities.

However, the best part of the day saw the court questioning over whether Vodafone acquired only shares or something apart from shares.

Chief Justice Kapadia posed a hypothetical situation and observed that in a case where A (share transfer) + B (various rights) is transferred and B is integral to the transaction, without B, there would be no value to the context and to that extent nexus was established.

Salve replied by arguing that nexus cannot be used to tax a transaction under section 9 of Income Tax Act 1961.

Solicitor General Nariman will begin his arguments on behalf of the revenue authorities on Tuesday September 20. 

The case continues.

The summary of proceedings in this article is based on the editorial feed provided by Taxsutra.com which is covering the hearing in technical detail on a daily basis.

Vodafone SC hearing: Week six

Vodafone SC hearing: Week five

Vodafone SC hearing: Week four

Vodafone SC hearing: Week three

Vodafone SC hearing: Week two

Vodafone SC hearing: Week one

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Corporate counsel should combine deep technical knowledge with strategic dynamism, says Agarwal, winner of ITR’s EMEA In-house Indirect Tax Leader of the Year award
Luxembourg’s reform agenda continues at pace in 2025, with targeted measures for start-ups and alternative investment funds
Veteran Elizabeth Arrendale will lead the new advisory practice, which will support clients with M&A tax structuring, post-deal integration, and more
MAP cases keep increasing, and cases closed aren’t keeping pace with the number started, the OECD’s Sriram Govind also told an ITR summit
Nobody likes paperwork or paying money, but the assertion that legal accreditation doesn’t offer value to firms and clients alike is false
Ryan hopes the buyout will help it expand into Asia and the Middle East; in other news, three German finance ministers have called for a suspension of pillar two
SKAT, which was represented by Pinsent Masons, had accused Sanjay Shah and other defendants of fraudulent dividend tax refund claims
TP managers must be able to explain technical issues in simple terms, ITR’s European Transfer Pricing Forum heard
Prudential had challenged HMRC over VAT group relief; in other news, Donald Trump unveiled timber and wood tariffs, and the European Commission published a ViDA implementation strategy
Australia’s CbCR rules have ‘widespread support’ and do not put American companies at a competitive disadvantage, the FACT Coalition said
Gift this article