All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

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 & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Vikas Garg talks to reporter Siqalane Taho about how regulation, technology and the goods and services tax has affected the manufacturing company.
A major shift is underway in tax as the profession transitions from a mostly accounting and finance sector to a hybrid industry that requires significant IT skills, say tax experts.
The Biden administration is about to give $80 billion to the Internal Revenue Service to enhance the tax authority’s enforcement processes and IT systems.
Audi, Porsche, and Kia say their US clients will face higher prices under the Inflation Reduction Act after the legislation axes an important tax credit for electric vehicle production.
This week Brazil’s former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva came out in support of uniting Brazil’s consumption taxes into one VAT regime, while the US Senate approved a corporate minimum tax rate.
The Dutch TP decree marks a turn in the Netherlands as the country aligns its tax policies with OECD standards over claims it is a tax haven.
Gorka Echevarria talks to reporter Siqalane Taho about how inflation, e-invoicing and technology are affecting the laser printing firm in a post-COVID world.
Tax directors have called on companies to better secure their data as they generate ever-increasing amounts of information due to greater government scrutiny.
Incoming amendments to the treaty could increase costs on non-resident Indian service providers.
Experts say the proposed minimum tax does not align with the OECD’s pillar two regime and risks other countries pulling out.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree