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

Vodafone SC hearing: Week five

Week five of the Supreme Court hearing saw Chief Justice Kapadia delving into the powers of a holding company to dictate terms to a subsidiary.

Kapadia questioned Vodafone’s counsel, Harish Salve, whether a subsidiary could simply be told about the price at which its shares would be sold. He also wanted to know if a top tier company could tell the ultimate subsidiary in India that the former would fix the price and sell the shares.

Kapadia referred to Aditya Birla – AT&T, where the Mumbai High Court held that a holding company dictates to the subsidiary details of, in particular, acquiring shares, agreeing a selling price and the agreements to be entered into.

In that case, the Mumbai court held that a sale of shares of an Indian company (Idea Cellular Limited) by Mauritian company (AT&T Mauritius) was in reality a sale by its US parent company (AT&T USA), as the substance of the transaction warrants such an inference

Salve responded by clarifying that there is no law which inhibits the sale of a share of a subsidiary at a price decided by its holding company, especially if the subsidiary is wholly owned.

He then applied the Aditya Birla – AT&T decision to Vodafone. He said this would mean Hutchison would be the beneficial owner of the Cayman Island company shares but the taxability would still not be affected.

Then, in an example of a modern, tech-savvy, chief justice, Kapadia explained how he had visited Vodafone’s website to check their financial statements and found that the company draws distinction between a principal and operating subsidiary.

Day 10 of the hearing was concluded with Salve taking the court through the transaction documents. He said there was no “mother” agreement between Essar and Hutchison, rather there were only three shareholder agreements.

The day ended with some controversy. It is understood that AT&T filed an intervention application against the Supreme Court on the ground that the Vodafone matter is likely to affect its own case.

Situs coming to India

Day 11 began with the bench asking questions about the $340 million payment made by Hutchison to Essar, and the appointment of Ravi Ruia as chairman of Vodafone Essar after the deal.

Kapadia questioned whether the appointment of Ruia could mean situs coming into India.

Salve clarified that while Essar received $340 million (for withdrawing its objections to the Hutch-Vodafone deal) and an assurance that Ruia would be appointed as chairman of Vodafone Essar, it would still not be taxable in the hands of Hutchison

Salve responded by claiming that two tests, incidence and chargeability, need to be applied if a transaction is deemed to be taxable.

The chief justice then posed a hypothetical question to Vodafone’s counsel about the consequences if Hutchison had given the Mauritius company a loan with the purpose to acquire shares of the Indian company. Kapadia wanted to know if the Mauritius company would then be considered a subsidiary. Salve said no.

The day ended with the court allowing AT&T to intervene in the case. AT&T’s counsel has been told to limit his arguments to section 9 of the Income Tax Act. These arguments will be heard after the solicitor general completes his arguments on behalf of the Revenue.

Vodafone is expected to conclude its argument on Tuesday September 6.

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

Vodafone SC hearing: Week one

Vodafone SC hearing: Week two

Vodafone SC hearing: Week three

Vodafone SC hearing: Week four

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

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.
Former PwC partner Peter-John Collins has been banned from serving as a tax agent in Australia, while Brazil reports its best-ever year of tax collection on record.