India: Applicability of MAT to foreign investors

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

India: Applicability of MAT to foreign investors

Sponsored by

logo.png
The proposed changes hope to make foreign investment more transparent.

The controversial issue of applicability of MAT to both FIIs/FPIs may finally be resolved.

dharawat.jpg

gangadharan.jpg

Rakesh Dharawat


Hariharan Gangadharan

In 2012, the Authority for Advance Rulings issued a ruling that India's book profit-based minimum alternate tax (MAT) applied to foreign companies. This ruling soon snowballed into a full-blown controversy with notices being issued by the tax authorities to several foreign companies engaged in making portfolio investments in the Indian stock market (foreign institutional investors (FIIs) and foreign portfolio investors (FPIs)). Although an amendment was made to the Income Tax Act as part of this year's Budget to clarify that MAT would not apply to foreign companies in respect of certain categories of income, this was prospective with effect from April 1 2015 and did not address the issue of whether such companies were liable to MAT for earlier years.

To address the specific concerns of FIIs/FPIs, the government had set up an expert committee to examine the applicability of MAT to such companies. The recently released report of the committee, headed by former Justice AP Shah, categorically states that MAT should not apply to FIIs/FPIs. The key findings in this regard are set out below:

  • The legislative history of MAT clearly indicates that it applies only to companies governed by the (Indian) Companies Act, 1956 and not to FPIs/FIIs;

  • Although the term 'company' as defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961, includes foreign companies, this definition must be contextually read down for the purposes of MAT so as to cover only those foreign companies which have a place of business in India and which are required under company law to prepare and file accounts;

  • FPIs/FIIs merely carry out business in India and they do not have an 'established place of business' as required under the provisions of the Companies Act; and

  • If the provisions of MAT are held to be applicable to FPIs/FIIs then such companies would have to compile their global accounts and compute book profits in accordance with the Companies Act. This would be contrary to the principle of 'territorial nexus' which is the basic principle for chargeability of income tax.

On September 24, the government issued two statements dealing with MAT – one dealing with FIIs/FPIs and the other dealing with foreign companies more generally. As regards FIIs /FPIs, the government has said that necessary amendments would be issued to clarify that MAT would not apply to FIIs/FPIs that do not have a place of business in India. Field officials have also been directed to keep proceedings against FIIs/FPIs in abeyance until the necessary legislative changes are in force.

The subsequent statement issued in relation to foreign companies generally states that MAT will not apply to foreign companies (with effect from April 1 2001) if they do not have a permanent establishment or place of business in India. It also states that necessary amendments to this effect will be carried out in the law.

With the above developments, the controversial issue of applicability of MAT to both FIIs/FPIs as well as other foreign companies for the period before April 1 2015 may finally stand resolved.

Rakesh Dharawat (rakesh.dharawat@dhruvaadvisors.com) and Hariharan Gangadharan (hariharan.gangadharan@dhruvaadvisors.com)

Dhruva Advisors

Tel: +91 2261081000

Website: www.dhruvaadvisors.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

In an exclusive interview with ITR, Ian Gary calls for a central public CbCR database and bemoans the US’s lack of involvement in international tax transparency
Reckitt Benckiser is to divest its Essential Home business, which includes more than 70 brands, to private equity firm Advent International
In the first of a new series of weekly opinion pieces, ITR Editor Tom Baker reflects on the OECD’s attempts to sanitise the US’s brazen pillar two negotiations
The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
Gift this article