International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

India: Ruling on taxation of indirect transfer

nayak.jpg

jain.jpg

Rajendra Nayak


Aastha Jain

Under the Indian Tax Law (ITL), any income arising from the transfer of a capital asset situated in India would be taxable in India. In 2012, the ITL was retroactively amended to introduce an indirect transfer taxation rule (the rule), to tax the transfer of shares of a foreign company, if such shares directly or indirectly derived 'substantial' value from assets located in India. The ITL does not provide any guidance on what constitutes 'substantial'. Recently, the Delhi High Court (HC) adjudicated on the issue of determining what constitutes 'substantial' when applying the rule. In the facts of the case, a UK incorporated company (UK Co) wanted to acquire the participation in a company located in Jersey (Jersey Co) and its subsidiaries situated in Mauritius, India and the US. Consequently, the following share purchase agreements (SPA) were entered into:

  • SPA-I: Transfer of 100% stake in an Indian company (I Co) by its parent company in Mauritius to UK Co.

  • SPA-II: Transfer of 100% stake in a US company (which in turn held an Indian company) by its parent company in Mauritius to UK Co.

  • SPA-III: Transfer of 67% stake in Jersey Co which was held by individual residents of UK.

Following a ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling on the non-taxability of the transaction, the HC was approached by the tax authority, which claimed that the arrangement was for the transfer of business and interest of Jersey Co which should be taxable in India under the rule as shares of Jersey Co derived their substantial value from India, through its (direct or indirect) subsidiaries. Further, routing the transactions through Mauritius (in SPA I, SPA II) was done with the object to avoid taxation and it should be disregarded.

The HC observed the following on the rule:

  • Legal fiction in the rule should be limited to income that has nexus with India;

  • 'Substantial' should be read as synonymous to 'principally', 'mainly', or at least 'majority'. For this purpose, 50% can be treated as reasonable threshold; and

  • Therefore, the rule can be invoked to tax transfers of overseas assets which derive 50% of their value from India.

In the present facts, HC held that each SPA has commercial rationale and is independent. It cannot be considered as a transaction structured to avoid taxes. Assuming SPA-I and SPA-II were not executed and if only shares of Jersey Co were transferred, the value of Jersey Co shares derived from India assets would only be 30.5% and it may not be regarded as 'substantial' in terms of the rule. Hence, it was held not taxable under the ITL.

Rajendra Nayak (rajendra.nayak@in.ey.com) & Aastha Jain (aastha.jain@in.ey.com)

EY

Tel: +91 80 6727 5275

Website : www.ey.com/india

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Brazilian government may be about to align the country’s unique system with OECD standards, but this is a long-awaited TP reform and success is uncertain.
Two months since EU political agreement on pillar two and few member states have made progress on new national laws, but the arrival of OECD technical guidance should quicken the pace. Ralph Cunningham reports.
It’s one of the great ironies of recent history that a populist Republican may have helped make international tax policy more progressive.
Lawmakers have up to 120 days to decide the future of Brazil’s unique transfer pricing rules, but many taxpayers are wary of radical change.
Shell reports profits of £32.2 billion, prompting calls for higher taxes on energy companies, while the IMF warns Australia to raise taxes to sustain public spending.
Governments now have the final OECD guidance on how to implement the 15% global minimum corporate tax rate.
The Indian company, which is contesting the bill, has a family connection to UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – whose government has just been hit by a tax scandal.
Developments included calls for tax reform in Malaysia and the US, concerns about the level of the VAT threshold in the UK, Ukraine’s preparations for EU accession, and more.
A steady stream of countries has announced steps towards implementing pillar two, but Korea has got there first. Ralph Cunningham finds out what tax executives should do next.
The BEPS Monitoring Group has found a rare point of agreement with business bodies advocating an EU-wide one-stop-shop for compliance under BEFIT.