Date post: | 17-Aug-2014 |
Category: |
Economy & Finance |
Upload: | rohit-jain |
View: | 1,155 times |
Download: | 0 times |
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
The tax dispute between – the Indian Tax Authorities; and – Vodafone
in connection with taxability of the $ 11.2 billion HUTCH-VODAFONE DEAL is one of the biggest controversies in Indian history.
The quantum of tax demand by the Indian Revenue Authorities in this particular case was aroundR s . 11 , 0 0 0 c ro re p lu s i n t e re s t .
Why this case study is so important???
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
First let us understand Some Basic Terms
• Merger – A merger involves the mutual decision of two companies to combine and become one entity. Eg. A + B = AB
• Acquisition – Acquisition is purchase of one company by another in which no new company is formed. Eg. A + B = A
• Merger is like two persons getting married.
• Acquisition is like an animal eats any other.
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
What does Tax Heaven Mean?
A tax heaven is a state, country or territory where certain taxes are levied at a low rates or not at all.
Wikipedia
World’s Top 10 Tax Heaven Countries
• Switzerland• Cayman Islands• Luxembourg• Hong Kong• USA
• Singapore• Jersey• Japan• Germany• Bahrain
TheRichest.Com
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
Companies Involved in Transaction
• HTIL (Hutchison Telecommunications International Limited)– Situated in Hong Kong – Holding 100% Shares in CGP Investments Holdings Ltd
• CGP (CGP Investments Holdings Limited)– Situated in Cayman Island, Mauritius (a tax haven country)– Holding 67% Shares in HEL
• HEL (Hutch Essar Limited) – Situated in India– Formed by Merger of HTIL and Essar Group
• VIH (Vodafone International Holdings)– Situated at Netherland– Subsidiary of Vodafone Group Plc
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
The Deal – A Diagrammatic View
HTIL
VELHEL
VIH CGP
Sold 100% holding of CGP to VIH
turned to
Vodafone Essar Limited
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
What is so interesting here?CGP is a dummy company
CGP is situated in Cayman Islands, which is a tax heaven.
VIH wanted to acquire HEL.
To save Tax, VIH opted to acquire CGP, holding Company of HEL.
Now VIH is neither liable to pay tax - in India because they have made no transaction in Indianor - in Mauritius because it’s a tax heaven.
Conclusion: Vodafone acquires Hutch in India with Nil Tax Liability.
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
Indian Revenue Authorities’ Opinion
CGP was created to
take benefits of Tax
Exemption.
Concept of
Substance Over Form
Transaction was to transfer Rights
in
HEL VELto
The Indian Revenue Authorities alleged that
VIH, had failed to Deduct Tax on the
payment of consideration made to
HTIL.
Hence, sought to assess tax in its hand as a taxpayer in default and it issued a
notice to Vodafone.
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
Vodafone petition to HC and SC
Instead of responding to the Notice of Indian Revenue Authorities, VIH filed a writ petition to the Honourable Bombay High Court challenging jurisdiction of Income Tax Department.
The Honourable Bombay High Court upheld the matter in favour of Indian Revenue Authorities.
VIH filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court disposed the case with a direction to Tax Authorities to decide the preliminary issue of jurisdiction.
December 2008
January 2009
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
Decision by Indian Tax Authorities and HC
After going through the terms of Share Purchase Agreement and other documents, it can be interpreted that the intention
of the parties was ultimately to transfer the controlling interest in HEL which was situated in India.
Further, HTIL had extinguished its right of control over HEL and extinguishment of “Rights and Entitlements” constituted as
“Capital Assets”.
CGP was a mere holding company and was not engaged into any business in Cayman Islands, thus, the situs of shares
existed where the “underlying assets” i.e. in India.
The Tax Authorities passed an order under section 201 holding that they had jurisdiction to proceed against Vodafone for
failure to deduct tax. May 2010
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
Vodafone Petition to HC and SC (II)
Vodafone filed a writ petition to the Bombay High Court challenging the order of Income Tax Authorities.
The Bombay High Court dismissed Vodafone’s writ petition against the order of the Tax Authorities.
Vodafone filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court admitted the SLP and directed Vodafone to deposit Rs. 2,500 crore and provide a bank guarantee for the balance Rs. 8,500 crore.
November 2010
September 2010
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Indian Revenue Authorities had no jurisdiction to tax the foreign transactions, as sale of shares was in Cayman Island.
Transfer of shares in CGP doesn’t amount to transfer of Capital Asset situated in India, as per Section 9(1)(i).
The transfer of “Rights and Entitlements” (Controlling Interest) is not covered in Definition of “Capital Assets” under section 2(14).
As Capital Asset is not taxable in India, so there is no question of Deducting Tax at Source under section 195(1).
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of Bombay High Court.January 2012
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
Retrospective Amendments in Tax Law
Certain Retrospective Amendments were made in Tax Law by Finance Act 2012 to nullify the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Section 9(1)(i)Income Deemed to
Accrued or arise in India
Section 2(47)Definition of Transfer
Section 2(14)Definition of Capital Assets
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
Shares of CGP were registered outside India.
But the shares derive its value substantially from the asset
located in India.
SECTION 9(1)(i)
All incomes accrued or arise, whether directly or indirectly through transfer of a “Capital Asset” situated in India.
Explanation for Capital Assets:A Capital Asset being any share in any Entity (whether registered outside India) deemed to be situated in India,
if the share derives its value substantially from the asset located in India.
Applicable w.e.f April 1, 1961
Co-relate with case
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
Explanation to SECTION 2(14)Applicable w.e.f April 1, 1961
HTIL have rights in Indian Co. (HEL)
Explanation to Section 2(14):“Property” includes and shall be deemed to have always included:- Any rights in Indian Company- Any rights in relation to an Indian Company
Co-relate with case
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
Explanation to SECTION 2(47)
HTIL transferred rights in Indian Co. to Vodafone,
indirectly Vodafone created interest in asset in India
By way of an agreement entered outside India
Explanation to Section 2(47):“Transfers” includes and shall be deemed to have always included:- Disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest
therein- Creating any interest in any asset in any
manner whether indirectly or otherwise- By way of an agreement (whether entered into
in India or outside India) or otherwise- Notwithstanding that such transfer of rights have
been characterized as being effected or dependent upon or flowing from the transfer of share of a company registered or incorporated outside India.
Co-relate with case
Applicable w.e.f April 1, 1961
www.iRohitJain.BlogSpot.Com
The Second Phase of Dispute is about to start.
Prepared by-Rohit Jain (CA-Final)
www.irohitjain.blogspot.com