Vodafone International Holdings B.V vs Union Of India & Anr

VBC 1 wp1325.10

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J.

WRIT PETITION NO.1325 OF 2010

Vodafone International Holdings B.V. ...Petitioner. Vs. Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents.

.... Mr.Harish Salve, Sr.Advocate with Dr.Abhishek Singhvi, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Arvind Datar, Sr.Advocate, Ms.Anuradha Dutt, Ms.Fereshte Sethna, Mr.Kuber Dewan, Ms.Shweta Bindhuri,

Mr.Gaurav Chauhan, Mr.Shardul Singh, Ms.Malvika Bakshi, Ms.Gayatri Goswami, Mr.Kamaldeep Dayal, Mr.Rahul Chugh,

Mr.Jaiveer Shergill, Mr.Sameer Singh and Mr.Rook Ray i/b. Duttmenon Dunmorsett for the Petitioner.

Mr.Mohan Parasaran, Addl. Solicitor General, Sr.Advocate with Mr.G.C.Srivastava, Special Counsel, Mr.B.M.Chatterji, Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr.R.Parthawarathy, Mr.Girish Dave, Mr.Zoheb Hussain, Mr.D.L.Chaidananda, Mr.Suresh Kumar and Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for

the Respondents. .....

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

September 8, 2010.

JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) :

1. The facts:

Hutchison's business interest in India:

Vodafone International Holdings B.V., Netherlands (VIH

BV) is a company controlled by the Vodafone Group Plc. U.K. In

1992 the Hutchison Group of Hong Kong acquired interests in the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 2 wp1325.10

mobile telecommunications industry in India, through a joint

venture vehicle, Hutchison Max Telecom Ltd. (renamed Hutchison

Essar Ltd - HEL in August 2005). Between 1992 and 2006

Hutchison acquired interests in twenty three mobile

telecommunication circles in India. HEL is an Indian company in

which shares were acquired by the Hutchison Group of companies

through a structural arrangement of holding and subsidiary

companies. The moiety of shares of all the operational companies

(Indian entities) which were under Hutchison control, direct or

indirect, were held either by Mauritius based companies recognized

as Overseas Corporate Bodies with tax residency certificates, or

through other entities in which Hutchison interests (shareholding

over which Hutchison exercised direct or indirect control) were

held by a Mauritian company.

Ownership structure :

-2. In order to facilitate an understanding of the key issues

in this case, we reproduce below an ownership structure chart:

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: EX OWNERSHIP Ownership Structure Chart, as at 11 February 2007, of (a) Hutchison Telecommunications International Lim SPA for procurement of Vodafone International purchase of share of CGP Hutchison Telecommunications Holdings, BV Mr. Asim Ghosh The Netherlands Investments (Holdings) Ltd. CI International Ltd. VENDOR PURCHASER CI

100% 100%

Hutchison Telecommunications Goldspot Mercantile Co. (P) Ltd. I Payee

International (Cayman) Holdings Limited CI OPTIONS AGREEMENT NOMINATED PAYEE (COUNTERPARTY) I 100% 100%.

Amber International Holdings Inc. BVI Plustech Mercantile Co. (P) Ltd. I OPTIONS AGREEMENT (COUNTERPART 100%

100% HTI (BVI) Holdings Limited BVI Transfer of Share TRANSFEROR

Centrino Trad 100% Private Ltd.

CGP Investments (Holdings) Limited CI TARGET

100% Array Holdings Limited ORIGINAL TARGET MS

100%

100% 100% Hutchison Tele- 0 CGP India Investments Limited Services (India) MS Holdings Limited MS

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 37.25% 100% Trans Al-Amin Euro Prime Mobilvest CCII Telecom

Crystal Investments Pacific Metals MS (Mauritius) Investments 3 Global Limited Limited Securities Ltd. Inc . India Pvt. Ltd. I Services Private MS MS Limited MS Limited I MS MS OPTIONS 100% AGREEMENTS. Jaykay Finholding (Ind CALL CENTRE

Limited I BUSINESS (DEMERGED TO HWL) 1 UMT Investments Lim

10

Usha Martin Telemati

8.356% 4.646% 0.7663% 1.5325% 9.5837% 2.5522% 12.9583%

Hutchison Essar Limited (subsequently renamed

100% 100% 100% Hutchison Telec Essar Spacetel Limited (Jammu & Hutchison Essar Mobile Services Ltd.

(Kolkata) I Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya (Delhi) I Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, Assam & other NE States including Sikkim, Arunachal 50.815% 49% 100 Pradesh, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Hutchison Essar South Limited Aircel Digilink Ind Manipur, Mizoram and Tripura) @ I (Chennai, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Haryana, Uttar Pr Punjab, Uttar Pradesh (West)ǿ, West Bengal ǿ I

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 4 wp1325.10

3. Hutchison held call options over companies controlled by

Asim Ghosh and Analjit Singh as also over SMMS Investments Pvt.

Ltd. aggregating to approximately 15% of the shareholding of HEL.

The benefit of these options enured in favour of a corporate entity

called 3 Global Services Private Ltd., a company registered under

the Companies' Act, 1956.

4. The licence for Mumbai Circle was awarded in November

1994 by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to

Hutchison Max Telecom Ltd. (HMTL). 50% of the share capital in

HMTL was held by an Indian company, Max Telecom Venture, 49%

by Hutchison Telecommunications (India) Ltd. Mauritius (HTM)

and 1% by another company. The parent company of HTM, at the

material time, was Hutchison Telecommunications (India) Ltd.

Cayman Islands (HTC). HTC, in turn, was a joint venture of the

Hutchison Group (60%) and Distacom India Co.Ltd., BVI (40%).

Distacom left the joint venture in 2004. Subsequently, a number of

investments were made through other companies:

● In 1998, MTV sold a 40% stake in HMTL to Telecom

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 5 wp1325.10

Investments India Ltd. (TII).

● In 2004, Essar (Mauritius) purchased the 40% stake of Distacom in HTC who then transferred the shares to HTI BVI

Holdings Ltd. HTM transferred 19.6% of its holding in HMTL to the Essar Group.

● In 2006, Kotak Group sold its 51% stake in TII to ND Callus

Info Services Pvt. Ltd., a company controlled by Analjit Singh. Simultaneously, Centrino Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. subscribed to 23.97% stake in TII.

● In 2006, the Hinduja Group, which held a 5.11% stake in HEL, sold its stake to Hutchison Group.

5. On 12 January 1998 CGP Investments (Holdings) Ltd.,

(CGP) was incorporated in Cayman Islands by the Hutchison

Group. HTL Hong Kong was the sole shareholder of CGP and in

September 2004, it came to be transferred to/acquired by HTI BVI.

6. Hutchison entered into the Delhi Telecom Circle in

December 1999, the Kolkata Circle in July 2000 and the Gujarat

Circle in September 2000. Licences for these Circles had initially

been awarded by DoT in 1994, 1997 and 1995 respectively.

7. In 2004, Hutchison Telecommunication International

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 6 wp1325.10

Ltd., Cayman Islands (HTIL) was incorporated and listed on the

Hong Kong and New York Stock Exchanges. HTIL and its

downstream companies held interests in the mobile

telecommunications business in several countries including India.

8. In 2005, HMTL (which later became HEL and is now

VEL) completed a process of consolidation. Shares of several

operating companies were transferred by diverse holding

companies to HMTL, in consideration for which HMTL issued its

own shares to these holding companies. Approval of the Foreign

Investment Promotion Board of the Union Government (FIPB) was

obtained in November 2004 and of the Reserve Bank in December

2004.

9. On 28 October 2005 VIH BV agreed to acquire 5.61% of

the shareholding in Bharti Televentures Ltd. (now Bharti Airtel

Ltd.).

Framework Agreements:

10. On 1 March 2006, Framework Agreements were entered

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 7 wp1325.10

into by Asim Ghosh and Analjit Singh. One agreement was

between Asim Gosh, Goldspot Mercantile Company Pvt. Ltd.,

Plustech Mercantile Co. Pvt. Ltd., 3 Global Services Pvt. Ltd.

(3GSPL) and Centrino Trading Co.Pvt. Ltd. Centrino Trading

acquired shares in TII. Plustech held 100% shares in Centrino.

Goldspot held 100% shars in Plustech. Goldspot was controlled by

Asim Ghosh. 3GSPL's holding company was Hutchison Tele-

Services (India) Holdings Ltd., Mauritius, and in turn, CGPC was

the holding company with a 100% shareholding of Hutchison Tele-

Services (India) Holdings Ltd.

11. 3GSPL (a Hutchison Company) agreed to procure credit

support in order to enable Centrino to subscribe to 23.97% shares

in TII (which holds directly and indirectly 19.54% in HEL). In

consideration for this, the Agreement conferred upon it a right:

• to subscribe to equity in Centrino.

• to purchase equity of Plustech

(3GSPL Call Option),

Goldspot had, in turn, an option to require 3GSPL to purchase

equity shares of Plustech (Goldspot Put Option). The transfer

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 8 wp1325.10

price/fair market value of the Plustech shares was to be determined

in terms of a comprehensive mechanism agreed to between the

parties, set out in Schedule 2.

12. There was a similar Framework Agreement between

Analjit Singh, Scorpios Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (held 100% by

Mr./Mrs.Analjit Singh), MV Healthcare Services Pvt.Ltd. (held

100% by Scorpios) and ND Callus Info Services Pvt. Ltd. (held

100% by MV Healthcare).

13. In consideration of 3GSPL procuring financial assistance

for N.D. Callus to subscribe to 38.78% shares in TII (which holds

directly and indirectly 19.54% in HEL), Scorpios granted 3GSPL.

• a right to subscribe to equity in ND Callus

• and/or purchase equity of MV. Healthcare.

3GSPL granted Scorpios Beverages an option to require 3GSPL to

purchase equity shares of MV Healthcare. The transfer price/fair

market value of the MV Healthcare shares was to be determined in

terms of Schedule 2, which set out a mechanism somewhat at

variance with the mechanism in the other Framework Agreement.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 9 wp1325.10

14. Similarly on 7 August 2006, a Framework Agreement

was executed between IDFC Pvt. Equity Co. Ltd., Hutchison

Telecommunications (India) Ltd., 3GSPL, Indusind Telecom

Network Ltd., HTIL and other companies.

Hutchison exits :

15.

In December 2006, HTIL issued a press statement, stating

that it had been approached by various potentially interested

parties regarding a possible sale of its equity interests in Hutchison

Essar Limited (HEL), the company's mobile operations in India.

16, On 22 December 2006, Vodafone Group Plc made a non-

binding offer for a sum of US$11.055 billion, in cash, for HTIL's

shareholdings in HEL. The letter stated that Hutch Essar was being

valued at an enterprise value of US $ 16.5 billion. The offer to HTIL

of US$ 11.055 billion was for its 67% interest in Hutch Essar.

17. On 9 February 2007, Vodafone Group Plc submitted a

revised and binding offer to HTIL on behalf of Vodafone

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 10 wp1325.10

International Holdings BV for HTIL's shareholdings in HEL

together with inter related company loans. The offer was US

$10.708 billion on the basis of an enterprise value of US $ 18.250

billion.

18. Bharti Infotel Pvt. Ltd. by a letter dated 9 February 2007

furnished its no objection to the proposed transaction.

19. On 10 February 2007, Vodafone Group Plc made a final

binding offer of US $ 11.076 billion, based on an enterprise value

of US $ 18.800 billion of HEL.

Sale Purchase Agreement :

20. On 11 February 2007, a Sale Purchase Agreement (SPA)

was entered into between the Petitioner and HTIL under which

HTIL agreed to procure and transfer to the Petitioner the entire

issued share capital of CGP, by HTI BVI free from all encumbrances

together with all rights attaching or accruing, and together with

assignment of loan interests. This was followed by announcement

by HTIL and Vodafone of 12 February 2007, the latter stating that

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 11 wp1325.10

it had agreed to acquire a controlling interest in HEL via its

subsidiary VIH BV.

21. On 20 February 2007, Vodafone Group Plc on behalf of

VIH BV addressed a letter to Essar Teleholdings Ltd. for purchase

of Essar's entire shareholding in HEL ('Tag along rights').

Application to FIPB :

22. On 20 February 2007, VIH BV, filed an application with

the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) of the Union

Ministry of Finance stating thus:

Vodafone Group acquired a direct and indirect

investment in Bharti Airtel Ltd.

• The Petitioner held 5.61% stake directly in Bharti

Airtel.

• Vodafone Mauritius held an indirect interest of 4.39% in Bharti Airtel through Bharti Infotel Pvt. Ltd. and Bharti Telecom Ltd.

• The Petitioner intended to acquire the share capital of CGP indirectly from HTIL. CGP owns directly and indirectly through its subsidiaries an aggregate of 42.34% of the issued share capital of HEL.

• This was an overseas transaction between two overseas companies, which requires noting, and does

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 12 wp1325.10

not require approval of FIPB.

• The Petitioner will acquire an indirect controlling interest of 51.96% in HEL, a company competing in

the same field with Bharti, attracting Press Note 1.

• The Consent of Bharti has been secured.

The Petitioner requested the FIPB to take note and grant approval

under Press Note 1 to the indirect acquisition of a 51.96% stake in

HEL through an overseas acquisition of the entire share capital of

CGP from HTIL.

23. On 22 February 2007, HTIL made an announcement on

the Hong Kong Stock Exchange stating that it intended to use the

proceeds from the sale of its interest in HEL by declaring a special

dividend of HK $ 6.75 per share, utilising HK $ 13.9 billion to

reduce debt and the remainder for investment in

telecommunications businesses.

24. On 28 February 2007, FIPB addressed a letter to HEL,

seeking complete details from HEL regarding direct and indirect

foreign holdings in HEL; details of Indian companies and beneficial

ownership details of entities of Asim Ghosh and Analjit Singh and

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 13 wp1325.10

the nature of arrangement of beneficial ownership.

25. On 2 March 2007, Asim Ghosh addressed a letter to HEL

confirming that he -

• through his companies, owned 23.97% of Telecom Investments India Pvt.Ltd., which in turn owned 19.54% of HEL

• held indirect equity of 4.68%

•

had full control over related voting rights,

is his own beneficiary,

•

• has received credit support, but the primary liability is with his companies.

26. On 5 March 2007, Analjit Singh addressed a

communication to FIPB confirming that -

• he is the founder and Chairman of Hutchison Max Telecom, now HEL.

• In 1998, Max divested 41% stake and balance 10% in

2005.

• In January 2006, an acquisition was made of 7.577% in HEL through Scorpios, etc. This is post-FDI norms altering the sectoral cap for foreign direct investment from 51% to 74%, when Hutch had to shed some equity.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 14 wp1325.10

• Voting rights legally and beneficially were owned by him.

• Structure was filed with FIPB in April 2006 and filed

with DoT on 27.04.2006. FIPB confirmed the structure on 01.08.2006.

27. On 6 March 2007, Essar Teleholdings Ltd. filed an

objection with FIPB in relation to the proposed transaction for

purchase of a controlling interest by the Petitioner in HEL through

purchase of overseas holding companies belonging to the

Hutchison group, on the ground that HEL and Bharti Airtel are

competing ventures in the same field and the proposed transaction

would result in both companies having a common foreign partner,

which could jeopardise the interests of HEL/Essar.

28. On 14 March 2007, FIPB addressed a letter to HEL

seeking the following clarification:

"In filing of HTIL before the US SEC in form 6K for the month of March 2006, it has been stated inter alia that the HTIL Group will continue to hold an aggregate interest of 42.34% of Hutchison Essar and an additional indirect interest through JV companies being non-wholly owned subsidiaries of HTIL which hold an aggregate of 19.54% of Hutchison Essar. Thus the combined holding of HTIL group would be 61.88%. However, in the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 15 wp1325.10

communication dated 6 March 2007 sent to FIPB, the direct and indirect FDI by HTIL is stated to be 51.96%.

This may kindly be clarified."

29. A similar letter was addressed to the Petitioner. In reply

HEL by its letter addressed to FIPB on 14 March 2007 clarified that

"...In summary, it is because of this difference in the US GAAP and Indian GAAP declarations that the combined

holding for US GAAP purposes was 61.88% and for Indian GAAP purposes is now 51.98%. The Indian GAAP

number reflects accurately the true equity ownership and control position".

30. The Petitioner by its clarification to FIPB dated 14

March 2007 stated that its effective shareholding in HEL will be

51.96% and consisted as follows:

• Vodafone will own a 42% direct interest in HEL

through its acquisition of 100% of CGP Investments (Holdings) Limited.

• Through CGP Vodafone will also own 37% in Telecom Investments India Private Limited ('TII') which in turn

owns 20% in HEL and 38% in Omega Telecom Holdings Private Limited ('Omega'), which in turn owns 5% in HEL. Both TIL and Omega are Indian companies.

• These investments combined give Vodafone a controlling interest of 52% in HEL.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 16 wp1325.10

• In addition, HTIL's existing Indian partners Asim Ghosh, Analjit Singh and IDFC who between them

hold a 15% interest in HEL have agreed to retain their shareholdings with full control including voting rights

and dividend rights.

31. On 15 March 2007, a settlement was arrived at between

HTIL and a set of companies belonging to the Essar Group by

which in lieu of the payment by HTIL of US $ 373.5 million

immediately and a further US $ 41.5 million, subsequently, Essar

indicated its support to the proposed transaction.

Notice under Section 133(6) :

32. On 15 March 2007, the Joint Director of Income Tax

(International Taxation) issued a notice under Section 133(6) of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 to HEL seeking information regarding

the sale of the stake of the Hutchison group, Hong Kong in HEL to

Vodafone Group Plc, including in relation to the Shareholders

Agreements and details of the transaction for acquisition of the

share capital of CGP.

33. On 19 March 2007, FIPB addressed a letter to the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 17 wp1325.10

Petitioner asking it to clarify under what circumstances Vodafone

had agreed to pay a consideration of US $ 11.08 billion for

acquiring 67% of HEL when the actual acquisition is only of

51.96%, according to the application.

34. On 19 March 2007, the Petitioner addressed a letter to

FIPB stating that it had agreed to acquire from HTIL, interests in

HEL which include a 52% equity shareholding, for US $ 11.08

billion and that the price included a control premium, use and

rights to the Hutch brand in India, a non-compete agreement with

the Hutch group, value of non-voting non-convertible preference

shares, various loan obligations and an entitlement to acquire a

further 15% indirect interest in HEL, subject to Indian foreign

investment rules, which together equated to 67% of the economic

value of HEL.

35. On 22 March 2007, HEL replied to the notice of 15

March 2007 of the Joint Director of Income Tax (International

Taxation) and furnished information relating to HEL. As regards

the transaction, HEL stated that it is not in a position to provide

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 18 wp1325.10

any responses, since it is neither a party to the transaction nor will

there be any transfer of shares of HEL.

36. On 22 March 2007, FIPB addressed a letter to the

Petitioner seeking a break-up of the valuation attached to each of

the items mentioned in the Petitioner's reply dated 19 March 2007,

together with supporting documents and regulatory filings.

37. On 23 March 2007, the Additional Director of Income

Tax (International Taxation) Range 2, Mumbai, issued a letter to

HEL intimating that both Vodafone Group Plc and Hutchison

Telecom group announcements evidenced that HTIL had made

substantial gains. HEL was consequently requested to impress

upon HTIL/Hutchison Telecom group to discharge tax liability on

gains, before they cease operations in India. Additionally, the

attention of HEL was drawn to Sections 195 and 197 of the Act.

The letter seemed to proceed on the basis that the shares of HEL

were being sold and that hence HEL would be in a position to get

the requisite information.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 19 wp1325.10

38. On 27 March 2007, the Petitioner addressed a letter to

FIPB confirming that it had taken into account :

i. The various assets and liabilities of CGPC including (i)

(a) its 51.96% direct and indirect equity ownership of

Hutch Essar; (b) its ownership of non-voting, non-

convertible, redeemable preference shares in Telecom Investments India Private Limited (TII) and Jaykay Finholding (India) Private Limited; (c) assumption of

liabilities in various subsidiaries of CGP amounting to approximately US $ 630 million; and (d) subject to

Indian foreign investment rules, its rights and entitlements, including subscription rights at par value and call options to acquire in the future a further

62.75% of TII, and call options to acquire in the future a further 54.21% of Omega Telecom Holdings Private Limited (Omega) which together would give the Petitioner a further 15.03% proportionate indirect

equity ownership of Hutch Essar; and

ii. Various other intangible factors such as control premium, use and rights to the Hutch brand in India and a Non-Compete Agreement with HTIL.

It also confirmed that in determining the bid price, there was no individual price placed on any of these items. The approach was to look at a total package, represented by the ownership of CGP and to assess the total value.

39. On 5 April 2007, HEL clarified to the Director of Income

Tax (International Taxation) that HEL had no tax liabilities

accruing out of the transaction and that it did not have a locus to

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 20 wp1325.10

review the obligations under Section 195 in relation to non-

resident entities regarding any purported tax obligations.

40. On 5 April 2007, FIPB in a letter to the Petitioner sought

details of Vodafone Group's projects/joint ventures/subsidiaries/

branches/business interest collaborations in all countries.

41.

On 9 April 2007, HTIL filed the agreements pertaining to

its transactions with FIPB.

FIPB Approval :

42. On 7 May 2007, FIPB conveyed its approval of the

transaction to the Petitioner subject to compliance with and

observance of all the applicable laws and regulations in India. The

approval was also subject to the condition of compliance with the

sectoral cap on 74% of foreign direct investment in the Telecom

Sector.

43. On 8 May 2007, the Petitioner paid a sum of US $

10,854,229,859.05 as consideration for the transaction to HTI CHL

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 21 wp1325.10

in terms of the instructions of HTIL dated 19 March 2007.

44. Following this, the share certificate of CGPC was

delivered up in Cayman Islands and the name of the Petitioner was

entered in the Register of Members of CGP.

45. On 8 May 2007, a Tax Deed of Covenant was entered

into between HTIL and the Petitioner, in pursuance of the SPA

indemnifying the Petitioner in respect of taxation or transfer

pricing liabilities payable or suffered by the Wider Group

Companies as defined by the SPA (i.e. CGP, 3GSPL, the Mauritian

holding companies and the Indian operating companies) on or

before completion, including any reasonable costs associated with

any tax demand.

46. Separately Loan Assignments were entered into inter alia

by the Petitioner and HTI (BVI) Finance Ltd., by which the rights of

the latter to receive loan repayments was assigned to the Petitioner

as part of the transactions contemplated under the SPA.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 22 wp1325.10

Notice under Sections 163, 201(1), 201(1A) :

47. On 6 August 2007, a notice to show cause was issued to

VEL under Section 163 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to explain

why it should not be treated as a representative assessee of the

Petitioner. The notice was challenged by VEL in a Writ Petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court.

48.

On 19 September 2007, the Assistant Director of Income

Tax (International Taxation), issued a notice to the Petitioner

under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) to show cause as to why it

should not be treated as an assessee-in-default for failure to

withhold tax.

49. On 3 December 2008, a Division Bench of this Court

dismissed the Petition, declining to exercise its jurisdiction under

Article 226 in a challenge to the show cause notice.

Directions of the Supreme Court :

50. In a Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme

Court, by an order dated 23 January 2009, the Second Respondent

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 23 wp1325.10

was directed to determine the jurisdictional challenge raised by the

Petitioner. The order passed by the Supreme Court reserved the

right of the Petitioner to challenge the decision of the Second

Respondent on the preliminary issue, if determined against the

Petitioner, before this Court leaving all questions of law open.

Thereafter, a second notice to show cause was issued to the

Petitioner under Section 201 on 30 October 2009 to which the

Petitioner filed a reply dated 28 January 2010. On 31 May 2010

the impugned order was passed by the Second Respondent under

Section 201 upholding jurisdiction.

51. On 31 May 2010, a notice to show cause was issued

under Section 163 to the Petitioner to show cause as to why it

should not be treated as an agent/representative assessee of HTIL.

CONTENTIONS:

A. The Petitioner :

52. Briefly stated, the case of the Petitioner is that if any of

the shares held by the Mauritian Companies were sold in India,

there would be no capital gains tax payable in India in view of the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 24 wp1325.10

Convention on avoidance of double taxation between Mauritius

and India. Hence, on a transfer of shares of HEL which are

admittedly an asset situated in India, there would have been no

capital gain tax chargeable in India. However, as the transaction

in the present case was that the share of an upstream overseas

company which was in a position to exercise control over a

Mauritian company was sold, the Revenue has sought to impose

capital gains tax on the ground that the transfer resulted in

consequential transfer of control over an Indian entity and thereby

gave rise to capital gain which is taxable in India.

53. The Petitioner contends that CGP (the subsidiary whose

share was transfered to it) through its downstream subsidiary,

directly or indirectly controlled equity interest in HEL. The

transfer of the share resulted in the Petitioner acquiring control

over CGP and its downstream subsidiaries including, ultimately

HEL and its downstream operating companies. On the passing of

control of downstream companies, commercial arrangements

common to such a transaction were put in place. The transaction

represents a transfer of a capital asset viz., the share of CGP. Any

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 25 wp1325.10

gain arising to the transferor or to any other person out of this

transfer is not taxable in India because the asset is not situated in

India. Hence, there was no sum chargeable to tax in India and the

obligation to deduct tax under Section 195 did not, as a result,

arise. The submissions can now be summarised.

(1) The case of the Department has vacillated: (i) The notice

to show cause suggested that the transaction was sham and

colourable. The impugned order proceeds on the basis that though

holding companies are permissible and the transaction was not by

itself a sham, the holding companies had no commercial

operations. The transfer of the CGP share resulted in a transfer of

66.9848% interest in HEL. However, in the course of submissions

the ASG, developed a new case that the transfer of the CGP share

resulted only in a transfer of 42.34% interest in HEL and the

balance must necessarily have been transferred through some

device. The ASG had urged that the shares held by companies

controlled by Analjit Singh and Asim Ghosh were beneficially held

by HTIL. The Revenue cannot be permitted to challenge FIPB's

acceptance to the contrary in collateral proceedings. The

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 26 wp1325.10

Department, when it decides to challenge a quasi judicial order,

cannot assign an entirely new set of reasons;

(2) The parties to the transaction understood the expression

"equity interest" to be (i) The transfer of direct and indirect control

of 42.34% of the equity capital of HEL; (ii) The transfer of pro-rata

control over TII and SMMS which is mandated by the policy of the

Government of India which provides a cap on foreign investments

in telecommunications; and (iii) The availability of the 'put'

options. The revised case of the Department is fallacious;

(3) Section 5(1) legislates with respect to nexus based on

residence while Section 5(2) is based on nexus relatable to source.

As regards nexus arising from source, tax can be imposed on

income which (i) is received in India; (ii) which accrues and arises

in India; and (iii) which is deemed to accrue or arise in India. For

income to arise or accrue in India, there must be a right to receive

income in India. In the present case, there is no income that

accrues or arises in India since the right to receive the money was

outside India under a contract entered into outside India and

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 27 wp1325.10

payment was made outside India;

(4) In Section 9, Parliament has specifically limited gains

arising out of transfers of capital assets to an asset situate in India.

The share of CGP is situated outside India. A share is situated

where it can be transferred. A share represents a bundle of rights

and the transfer of a share results in a transfer of all the underlying

rights. However, in law, what is transferred is a share and not

individual rights. There is a distinction in law between

shareholders and a company and a shareholder has no right in the

assets of the company. Hence, the contention of the Revenue that

the transfer of control over the business in India constitutes a

transfer of an asset in India is without any foundation;

(5) By legislation several countries have made "look-

through" provisions by which a tax is imposed on gains arising out

of a transfer of shares outside the country if it results in the passing

of control over a company which holds substantial immovable

property in the country. This is an area of legislative intervention.

In India, Parliament has amended the law by incorporating a full

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 28 wp1325.10

Chapter on transfer pricing to deal with cross-border transactions.

However, Section 9 has not been amended. A look-through

provision cannot be introduced by judicial interpretation;

(6) The SPA represents an arms length commercial

transaction which was entered into between the two large foreign

corporations. It is not the case of the Revenue that the document is

sham or colourable. If the shares of an Indian company which are

held by companies resident in Mauritius were transferred to the

Petitioner directly and without intervention of any intermediate

company, there would be no liability to capital gains tax because it

would be fully covered by the Indo-Mauritius Tax Treaty. The

Department would not in law be permitted to go behind a

corporation resident in Mauritius in view of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao. The SPA dispels any notion that

there was anything more than the transfer of the CGP share for

consideration. The other clauses relate to consequential changes

that would flow from the downstream effect of the transfer of the

CGPC share;

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 29 wp1325.10

(7) As regards the framework agreements, it has been

submitted that (i) The framework agreements dated 1 March 2006

relating to Asim Ghosh and Analjit Singh Group companies confer

rights upon 3GSPL. Neither of those agreements confers any right

upon HTIL; (ii) The framework agreement of 7 August 2006

relating to TII confers options upon 3GSPL. Neither the

shareholder's agreement dated 5 July 2003, nor of 1 August 2006

confers any right upon HTIL;

(8) In any case, the theory that because there are some

contracts which are related to the contract of sale, and since the

former contracts have nexus with India, the sale outside India will

have nexus with India is neither supportable in principle nor on

authority. The tax relates to gains arising out of a transfer of a

capital asset situated in India, not a capital asset, the transfer of

which has some nexus with India. Parliament has deliberately used

the word "situate in India" in relation to capital assets. Where the

asset is situated outside India and the transfer of that capital asset

takes place, the location of the asset does not notionally shift to

India because the agreement pursuant to which it is transferred has

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 30 wp1325.10

also led to certain related agreements which have nexus with India;

(9) The contention of the Department that the right to use

the Hutch Brand during the transition period which was royalty

free brings about the transfer of some capital assets in India to

which the consideration paid for the shares relates, is

misconceived. The Hutch Brand was to be withdrawn from India

and all that the agreement permitted was, use during the limited

period free of charge. Where a controlling interest in shares is

sold, it is usual to incorporate transitory arrangements without

specific consideration. The value of the transfer of the enterprise is

captured in the sale price of the shares and the gain made by the

seller is a capital gain, in the jurisdiction where the property is

situated. Independent values are not assigned to these segments;

(10) The suggestion of the Revenue that the benefit of the

Telecom licence stood transferred is misconceived. Under the

Telecom policy, a Telecom licence can only be held by Indian

Companies and there was no transfer direct or indirect of any

licence. The Telecom policy, however, permits FDI in Telecom

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 31 wp1325.10

companies which may be routed through investment and holding

companies. Even the condition under the Telecom licence

imposing restriction on the transfer of shares in companies holding

licences was first amended in 2001 to reduce it to a lock-in period

of five years from the date of the licence. In 2005, it was further

amended and presently only a reporting requirement has been

made;

(11) There is no legal requirement of obtaining permission of

the FIPB for a transfer of shares. The shares in Telecom companies

can be bought and sold and the only requirement is a reporting

requirement. The Petitioner was required to obtain a formal

permission under Press Note-1 as would any other buyer if he had

a joint venture in the same field in India or held shares in any other

companies in India. The need to obtain permission by the

Petitioner, asserted by the Revenue, does not shift the situs of the

share in India. The proceedings before the FIPB show that

enquiries were held on whether HEL had permitted excessive FDI

by virtue of the beneficial interest in the shares held by Analjit

Singh and Asim Ghosh Group of companies in reality being held by

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 32 wp1325.10

HTIL. After a thorough enquiry, this suggestion was negated and

an undertaking secured that as and when they do transfer the

shares, they would seek FIPB permission. This militated against

the case of the Revenue that there was some transfer in praesenti;

(12) For the purpose of taxation, the corporate veil can be

lifted only where a tax fraud is being perpetrated;

(13) Section 195 is inapplicable to off-shore entities making

off-shore payments.

Section 195 has to be read consistent with the

established principles of conflict of laws and harmonious with the

proposition that Parliament does not enact law that has extra

territorial operation, unless expressly so stated. The statutory duty

under Section 195 cast on the payer is accompanied by a duty

under Section 200 to pay the tax and is visited with penal

consequences for breach. All these consequences which operate

against a person who is not an assessee can arise only where the

person concerned has some nexus with India. A person who has

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 33 wp1325.10

no residential nexus whatsoever either temporary or permanent

does not incur an obligation under Section 195. A foreign entity

which has no presence in India, not even a branch office, cannot be

subjected to the obligation to deduct and pay tax. It is the recipient

who is a potential assessee because he has received a sum

chargeable. This by itself does not create a nexus with the payer

who has no income chargeable under the Act, nor has a presence of

any kind in India. Moreover, Section 198 which deems tax

deducted and paid to be income received by the payee and Section

199 which deems such a payment to be payment of tax on behalf of

the person from whom such a tax is deducted, would not operate

outside India in transactions such as the present. Payment of tax in

India would not be a partial discharge of the obligation to pay

consideration under the agreement outside India. Hence, even

assuming that it is held that some part of the income may be

taxable in India, considering the fact that -

(a) The Petitioner has no presence in India;

(b) The transaction was consummated outside India;

(c) The transaction related to transfer of a share

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 34 wp1325.10

outside India, contracted to be delivered outside India and the transfer of which was registered

outside India;

(d) The governing law of the contract pursuant to which it was transferred was English law;

(e) Payment was made from a bank account outside

India to a bank account outside India,

there is no question of deduction of tax on such payments.

(14) In order that there should be an enforceable obligation

under Section 195 against the payer, it must be established that the

payment is of a sum chargeable under the Act. Section 195 uses

the words "sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act".

Hence, where a demand is made of tax against a person on the

ground that there was a failure to deduct tax under Section 195, it

is open to such a person to challenge the demand on the ground

that the condition precedent - of there being a sum chargeable

under the Act - is absent and the demand is without jurisdiction.

Where there is a sum chargeable under the Act, then obviously two

options would be to pay the tax on the gross amount or to seek and

deduct tax under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 195. Where

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 35 wp1325.10

nothing is chargeable, it is not mandatory for the payer to seek a

determination under Section 195(2). In a case such as the present,

where the payment has no element which could be made liable to

tax in India and the payer does not withhold any tax and the

Department thereafter makes a demand of tax which allegedly

should have been withheld under Section 195, it is open to the

payer to contend that his action was justified on the ground that

there was no sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act. Such

an issue if raised has to be decided and not only on a prima facie

basis.

2) SUBMISSIONS OF THE UNION OF INDIA:

54. The core submission on behalf of the Union of India and

the Respondents is that the SPA and other transaction documents

establish that the subject matter of the transaction is not merely the

transfer of one share of CGP situated in Cayman Islands as

contended by the Petitioner. The transaction constitutes a transfer

of the composite rights of HTIL in HEL as a result of the divestment

of HTIL rights which paved the way for the Petitioner to step into

the shoes of HTIL. The transaction in question, it is urged, has a

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 36 wp1325.10

sufficient territorial nexus to India and is chargeable to tax under

the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the finding of the Assessing

Officer that he has jurisdiction, is not perverse or arbitrary and

would not warrant interference under Article 226 of the

Constitution. The submissions may now be summarised:

(i) The decision of the Revenue is based on an interpretation

of the agreements in question which would render the submission

of the Petitioner on "form versus substance" irrelevant. The

submission of the Department can be justified on the basis of the

form of the transaction as reflected in the transaction documents;

(ii) There is a distinction between proceedings for the

deduction of tax and regular assessment proceedings where larger

issues have to be investigated. The jurisdictional issue is

legitimately to be confined to the obligation of the Petitioner under

Section 195 to deduct tax. In the absence of HTIL - the deductee

- a full determination of facts which lie within its special

knowledge would not be fair and proper. Nonetheless, the

Revenue has placed its submissions before this Court in order to

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 37 wp1325.10

assist the determination as to whether the transaction was

chargeable to tax under Sections 4, 5 and 9;

(iii) The essential question is whether HTIL had a source of

income traceable to India or a capital asset in India which it

transferred. HTIL received income from the divestment of its

rights and interests in HEL which cannot be disputed. The income

has been appropriated by HTIL by declaring a "transaction special

dividend" of H.K.$ 6.75 to its shareholders in Hong Kong which

was paid out of the "profits from discontinued operations". This is

evident from the interim and final annual reports of HTIL, for the

year ending 2007 prepared in compliance with Hong Kong

Financial Reporting Standard 5 (HKFRS5). HKFRS5 introduced the

concept of a disposal group and a discontinued operation;

(iv) The subject matter of the transaction between HTIL and

the Petitioner was a transfer of 67% in HEL. The acquisition of

one CGP share is only one of means to achieve that object. The

nexus of the transaction with India is evident from the nature of

HTIL's rights in HEL which were :

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 38 wp1325.10

-(i) A direct and indirect interest of 51.96% in the equity

of HEL through its wholly owned subsidiaries;

-(ii) Indirect interest in the equity of HEL of 15.03%

through Call Options in the companies held by Analjit Singh, Asim

Ghosh and IDFC;

-(iii) Right to do business through telecom licence

granted to the Special Purpose Vehicle promoted by HTIL and Essar

as promoter and joint venture partner;

-(iv) Acquisition and devolution of Hutch brand;

-(v) Management rights over HEL flowing through Term

Sheets and shareholder agreements; and

-(vi) Debt/loans through intermediaries for infusion as

equity or debt in HEL.

(v) Besides procuring the sale of one share belonging to

CGP, HTIL had necessarily to adopt several steps to consummate

the transaction of transferring all its rights in HEL in India. These

steps included (i) Procuring assignment of loans; (ii) Facilitating

framework agreements; (iii) Transferring management rights in

HEL; (iv) Transferring the Hutch Brand; and (v) Transferring

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 39 wp1325.10

Oracle Licence etc. All these were independent of the transfer of

the CGP share. The consideration paid by the Petitioner to HTIL

was for a package of composite rights and not for a mere transfer

of a CGP share.

(vi) The acquisition of the shareholding in CGP did not

transfer in itself all the rights and interests which flow to the

Petitioner from the transaction. The Petitioner obtained a

compendium of rights including effective control and management

of the joint venture in India as a result of which it stepped into the

shoes of HTIL. This arose as a consequence of the Petitioner

entering into distinct and independent contracts which have no co-

relation with the acquisition of CGP equity. Though neither the

Petitioner nor its predecessor-in-interest, HTIL are shareholders in

HEL (now VEL), they are able to secure control over the Indian

Corporate entity only by reason of their entering into contractual

obligations as evidenced from the term sheet agreements between

the joint venture partners. The first term sheet agreement of 5

July 2003 inter alia between Essar Teleholdings Ltd. and HTIL

contemplated that the operating companies would be consolidated

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 40 wp1325.10

by transferring their shares to an Indian holding company

(Holdco). Holdco became HMTL and was renamed as HEL. As a

result of such agreements, HTIL secured significant management

rights so long as it continued to hold at least 40% of the issued

share capital of HEL. All major decisions called "Reserved

decisions" were to be at the absolute discretion of HTIL;

(vii)

Accounting Standard 24 of the Institute of Chartered

Accountants of India recognizes that control may be obtained

directly or indirectly through a subsidiary from the ownership of

more than half of the voting power of an enterprise or by control

of the composition of the Board of Directors. Section 211(3A) of

the Companies Act requires accounts to comply with Accounting

Standards. A controlling interest in a company can be obtained by

independent agreements de hors shareholding;

(viii) The right to take vital decisions with reference to the

management of the joint venture was legally vested in the

Petitioner as a result of stand alone contracts, independent of the

acquisition of CGP share and was oriented towards the India

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 41 wp1325.10

specific joint venture. These rights have enured independent of the

CGP share as would be evident from the Restated Term Sheet

dated 24 August 2007;

(ix) In order to appreciate the terms of and the impact of the

SPA, the circumstances which transpired prior to and subsequent to

its execution are relevant. The name which parties attribute to a

transaction which is the source of receipt or the characterization of

the receipt is not conclusive and the true nature and character has

to be ascertained from the covenants of the contract in the light of

surrounding circumstances;

(x) Several valueable rights which are property rights and

capital assets stand relinquished in favour of the Petitioner by

reason of the agreements which form part of the composite

transaction and not merely by the simple transfer of one CGP

share. These rights are property and constitute an asset of a capital

nature which is situated in India. But for these agreements, HTIL

would not have been able to effectively transfer to the Petitioner,

controlling interest in the joint venture to the extent of 66.9828%

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 42 wp1325.10

in HEL;

(xi) An Analysis of the SPA shows that clause 2 is expressly

subject to the condition provided in clause 4.1. By clause 4.2(a),

the purchaser had the responsibility to use all reasonable

endeavours to obtain FIPB approval. The transaction is subject to

the consent and approval of the Indian regulatory authority, FIPB.

The fulfillment of the condition precedes the vesting of the rights

and obligations of the parities under the contract and if FIPB

approval is not obtained, HTIL was permitted to terminate the

agreement. The approval of FIPB would not have been required if

the transaction was only the transfer of one CGP share. HTIL

entered into a settlement with the Essar Group on 15 March 2007,

in order to obtain its support in the completion of SPA. By clause

5, HTIL was required to give notice to Essar and to purchase the

tag along rights of Essar Teleholdings Ltd. as a minority

shareholder of HEL. The Petitioner made an offer on 20 February

2007 for purchasing 33% of Essar interest in HEL for US $ 5.7687

billion. Vodafone and Essar Group entered into a term sheet

agreement on 15 March 2007 to regulate the affairs of HEL and the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 43 wp1325.10

relationship between shareholders of HEL. The Petitioner would

have operational control of HEL while Essar would have rights

consistent with its shareholding, including a proportionate Board

representation. The term sheet agreement was restated in August

2007 after the approval of FIPB was received. On 15 March 2007,

Essar, HTIL and Vodafone entered into a Deed of Waiver by which

Vodafone waived certain warranties given by the seller in the SPA.

All this was unnecessary if the transaction related to only one share

of CGP;

(xii) Vodafone and Vodafone Group Plc as guarantor of

Vodafone, entered into a Put Option agreement on 15 March 2007

with Essar Teleholdings Ltd., India and Essar Mauritius Company

requiring Vodafone to purchase from Essar Group all of the option

shares held by them at a price payable at the first put option shares

of US $ 5 billion. For the second put option Vodafone Group

acquired from Essar Group, an irrevocable right to purchase such

number of shares as the Essar Group may determine, subject to a

minimum aggregate fair market value of US $ 1 billion and upto a

maximum of US $ 5 billion. This shows that the transaction under

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:46 ::: VBC 44 wp1325.10

the SPA involved a succession by Vodafone of HTIL's joint venture

interest in India and not merely a transfer of one share of CGP;

(xiii) In clause 8 of the SPA, HTIL assumed the responsibility

to ensure execution of the terms of the transaction documents by

the Indian entities and persons. Clause 9.5 of the SPA

contemplated that in the event of breach, the agreement would be

treated as requiring HTIL to procure the delivery of 66.9848% of

the issued share capital of HEL to Vodafone and HTIL will be

deemed to have transferred that proportion of the share capital of

HEL. Clause 10.4 requires the replacement of the Oracle licence in

favour of HEL and so that the consulting agreement is not

terminated as a result of the SPA. Clause 14.1 embodied a non-

compete clause restraining the vendor from carrying on any

competing business in India. The extent of this restriction was co-

terminus with the rights conferred on HTIL under its non-compete

agreement with Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. in 2004 at the time of

restructuring of the Hutchison Group;

(xiv) The transaction between HTIL and VIH BV took into

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 45 wp1325.10

consideration the following:

(i) The interest held in HEL through eight Mauritius

companies characterized as a direct interest

aggregating to 42.34%;

(ii)Interest held in the Indian Company TII (to the

extent of 37.25% of share capital through CGPM)

which held shareholding of 19.54% in HEL,

resulting in holding of 7.24% interest in the Indian

company HEL;

(iii)Interest held in the Indian company Omega

Holdings (to the extent of 45.79% of share capital

through HTIM), which held shareholding of 5.11%

in HEL, resulting in holding of 2.34% interest in

the Indian company HEL;

(iv) Rights (and Options) by providing finance and

guarantee to Asim Ghosh Group of companies to

exercise control over TII and indirectly over HEL

through TII shareholders agreement and the

Centrino Framework Agreement dated 1.3.2006;

(v) Rights (and options) by providing finance and

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 46 wp1325.10

guarantee to Analjit Singh Group of companies to

exercise control over TII and indirectly over HEL

through various TII shareholders agreements and

the N D Callus Framework Agreement 1-3-2006;

(vi) Controlling rights over TII through the TII

Shareholder's Agreement, in the form of right to

appoint two directors with veto power to promote

its interests in HEL and thereby hold beneficial

interest in 12.30% of the share capital of the Indian

company HEL;

(vii) Finance to SMMS to acquire shares in ITNL

(formerly Omega) with right to acquire the share

capital of Omega in future;

(viii) Controlling rights over ITNL through the ITNL

Shareholders Agreement, in the form of right to

appoint two directors with veto power to promote

its interests in HEL and thereby it held beneficial

interest in 2.77% of the share capital of the Indian

company HEL;

(ix) Interest in the form of loan of USD 231 million to

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 47 wp1325.10

HTI (BVI) which was assigned to Array Holdings

Ltd.;

(x)Interest in the form of loan of USD 952 million

through HTI (BVI) utilized for purchasing shares in

the Indian company HEL by the 8 Mauritius

companies;

(xi) Interest in the form of Preference share capital in

JKF and TII to the extent of USD 167.5 million and

USD 337 million respectively. These two

companies hold 19.54% equity of HEL. Right to do

telecom business in India through joint venture;

(xii) Right to avail of the telecom licenses in India and

right to do business in India;

(xiii) Right to use the Hutch brand in India;

(xiv) Right to appoint/remove directors in the board

of the Indian company HEL and its other Indian

subsidiaries;

(xv) Right to exercise control over the management

and affairs of the business of the Indian company

HEL (Management Rights);

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 48 wp1325.10

(xvi) Right to take part in all the investment,

management and financial decisions of the Indian

company HEL;

(xvii) Right to control premium;

(xviii) Right to consultancy support in the use of

Oracle license for the Indian business;

The rights enumerated above are subject matter of

transfer between HTIL and Vodafone and are

enumerated in clauses 6.1(ix), 6.2(b), 6.4, 8.8, 8.9, 10.1,

10.4, 10.5 and 14.1 of the SPA. The price paid by

Vodafone was for the acquisition of all the above

enumerated composite rights which it held in HEL. It is

not for the mere transfer of a CPG share.

(xv). HTIL's interest in HEL arose by way of indirect equity

shareholding, option agreements, finance agreements,

shareholders' agreements etc., the aggregate of which confers a

controlling interest of 66.9848% in HEL. All these varied interests

did not emerge only from one share of CGP and could not have

been conveyed by the transfer of only one equity share. HTIL held

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 49 wp1325.10

its direct equity interest in HEL amounting to 42.34% through eight

Mauritian companies. HTIL exercised management control on

account of the collective shareholdings of diverse entities and on

account of shareholders' agreements, term sheet agreements and

other arrangements negotiated with the joint venture partners.

HTIL's indirect subsidiary, CGPM held 37.25% equity interest in

TII, an Indian company which in turn, held a 12.96% equity

interest in HEL. CGPM, as a result of its 37.25% interest in TII had

an interest in several downstream companies which in turn, held

interests in HEL, as a result of which HTIL obtained an indirect

equity interest of 7.24% in HEL. HTIL had a further 15% interest

in HEL by virtue of option agreements, framework agreements and

shareholders agreements of Asim Ghosh, Analjit Singh and IDFC

and credit arrangement with their companies. All these rights

essentially did not go with one share of CGP. The significance of

the framework agreements with the Analjit Singh Group

companies, Asim Ghosh Group companies and IDFC Group

companies was that Global Services Private Limited (GSPL), an

indirect subsidiary of HTIL held certain subscription rights and call

options to subscribe to and to acquire the shares of Indian

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 50 wp1325.10

companies, controlled by Asim Ghosh, Analjit Singh and IDFC,

which held investments in TII which in turn held shares in HEL.

These rights arose under the -

1. ND Callus Framework Agreement dated 1 March 2006.

2. Centrino Framework Agreement dated 1 March 2006.

3. IDFC Framework Agreement dated 7 August 2006.

4. TII Shareholders' agreement dated 1 March 2006.

5. ITNL (Omega) Shareholders' agreement dated 7 August 2006.

● The subscription rights and call options were granted to 3- Global Services Private Limited (3GSPL) in consideration of 3GSPL procuring credit support to finance the acquisition of investment in TII and ITNL by the said Indian companies.

Through these agreements, HTIL had indirect control and

● substantial influence over HEL which was characterized as 15% economic interest over HEL.

(xvi) These subscription rights and option rights were acquired

under the framework agreements and could be exercised subject to

their terms and conditions. These were rights which arose or

accrued under independent agreements. One of the terms and

conditions was that the agreement could be terminated on the

occurrence of an event of default. A change of control was defined

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 51 wp1325.10

as an event of default. Hence, a transfer of the CGP share to

Vodafone would not enable Vodafone to exercise rights under these

agreements unless it acquired those rights by entering into

separate agreements with the Indian companies. Vodafone entered

into similar agreements with the Indian companies to assure rights

in its favour.

(xvii)

Under Section 9(1), the deeming fiction is of a wide

amplitude and all kinds of income derived by a non-resident from

whatever source are brought within the ambit of the provision.

Clause (i) of Section 9(1) provides that income is deemed to accrue

or arise in India whether directly or indirectly inter alia through or

from (a) a business connection in India; (b) property in India; (c )

any asset in India; (d) any source of income in India; or (e)

through the transfer of a capital asset situated in India. The

common thread is that the income should have sufficient territorial

or economic nexus with India. Unlike the OECD Group of

countries, India has a wide net of source based taxation to preserve

its tax base. It is for this reason that Section 9 is of a wide

amplitude and a comparison with the OECD system of taxation will

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 52 wp1325.10

not be appropriate.

(xviii) HEL is situated in India and its business of

telecommunications was carried out entirely in India with relevant

licences and regulatory clearances granted under Indian Laws.

There has been a transfer of controlling interest in HEL from one

non-resident to another non-resident. The business of HEL is based

on property located within India. The gains received by HTIL

through the transfer of the CGP share, the value of which was

determined on the basis of the enterprise value of HEL being

property situated in India and other valuable rights transferred by

way of agreement are chargeable to tax in India. The gains are

deemed to arise once the subject matter of the transaction

constitutes a capital asset and its location is in India. Section 2(14)

defines the expression "capital asset" in wide terms to mean

property of any kind held by assessee. This will include rights and

interests which are capable of being owned and transferred. The

definition of the word "transfer" in Section 2(47) is wide enough to

comprehend any method of transfer. The entire enterprise value

attributed to HEL, was only on account of the fruits of the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 53 wp1325.10

investment made by HTIL in India, goodwill/brand value generated

by HTIL for the Hutch Brand in India, the telecom licences granted

in India, customer base in India and the prospect of future

development and expansion of business in India. Further, all

obligations cast upon the parties as per the transaction documents,

were performed in India, including FIPB approval, Option

Agreements, Term Sheet Agreements, Shareholder Agreements,

Framework agreements with TII and Omega, Divestment of

petitioners interest in Bharti Airtel Ltd., Settlement agreement with

Essar, Trade Mark License. Further, the Non-compete condition

was enforceable only in India and the Loan/Debt

agreement/assignment to the Petitioner, was in respect of funds

utilized in Indian business. Thus, the income from the transaction

accrues or arises in India and is chargeable to tax under the first

limb of Section 5(2)(b) of the Act.

(xix) The words "accrue" or "arise" indicate some origin or

source of income and have to be determined on the cumulative

effect of the facts in each case. They have a definite co-relation to

a place where such income is derived and what must be considered

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 54 wp1325.10

is the originating source of the gains, profits or income. The entire

income which is derived by HTIL had its source in India and arose

or accrued in India. The transaction in the present case, involves a

transfer of a bundle of interests in various entities and it would be

simplistic to assume that what was transferred was only a share of

a Company in Cayman Islands and that all the other rights were

incidental to the transfer.

(xx) The acquisition of an interest in a joint venture does

amount to the acquisition of a capital asset. The acquisition of a

bundle of interests amounted to acquisition of property in India.

HTIL could transfer its controlling interest in HEL only upon

extinguishing its rights in the Indian Company. A divestment of its

right, title or interest necessarily preceded divestment of the

controlling interest. The divestment by HTIL of its interests would

result in an enduring benefit to VIH BV, resulting in the acquisition

of a capital asset in India. HTIL relinquished its asset, namely, its

interest in HEL so as to fall within the ambit of the expression

"transfer" as defined in Section 2(47). The object of the transfer

was to enable the VIH BV to acquire a controlling interest in HEL

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 55 wp1325.10

and thereby a right to manage HEL. In the present case a debt

was also assigned in favour of the Petitioner.

(xxi) In the present case, VIH BV disregarded the Indian

corporate personality of the intermediary companies in the transfer

of the asset and in the appropriation of income. The mode of the

transfer of an asset is not determinative of the nature of the asset.

Shares in themselves may be an asset but in many cases like the

present, they may be merely a mode or a vehicle to transfer some

other assets. In the present case, the subject matter of transfer is

not just the shares of the Cayman Islands Company but assets

situated in India. The particular mode of transfer will not alter or

determine the situs, nature or character of the asset.

(xxii) The expression "person" in Section 195 is not restricted

to a person resident in India and the provision can be applied also

to a non-resident. The provisions of a statute dealing with

machinery for collection of tax have to be construed according to

the ordinary rules of construction and to make the charge effective.

The Legislature has deliberately not qualified the expression

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 56 wp1325.10

"person" in restrictive terms and it would be impermissible to do so

by interpretation. Even though the revenue laws of one country

are not enforceable in another, this does not mean that the laws

themselves will not be enforced by the Courts of one country

against a resident of another country. While the enforcement of

the law cannot be contemplated in a foreign State, it can

nonetheless be enforced by the Courts of the enacting State to the

degree that is permissible with the machinery available.

(xxiii) In the present case, the transfer was not incidentally or

marginally related to India. It has been admitted that the price

paid to HTIL by the Petitioner was based on the underlying value of

the Indian asset. The fact of the change of ownership of the Indian

asset is evident from the permission required, sought and obtained

of the FIPB under the Telecom policy. This was intended to

further the business interest of the Petitioner and the transaction

resulted in the introduction of the Vodafone brand. The

transaction has a substantial nexus which would result in an

obligation being cast upon the Petitioner to deduct tax under

Section 195.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 57 wp1325.10

(xxiv) Section 195 applies to all payments which wholly or

partly represent a sum chargeable to tax. Once the income is

chargeable, the nexus will exist both with regard to payee and the

payer.

-(xxv) A deduction of tax at source is only a tentative deduction

and does not cause any prejudice to the person who is responsible

to deduct the tax from the monies payable. No prejudice is caused

to the deductor or to the deductee. The obligation to deduct tax

under Section 195 is activated once the payment being made has

the character of income for the purpose of the Act. A payment

which has a character of income as defined in Section 2(24) will be

income chargeable to tax for purpose of Section 195 and tax must

be deducted. Once the payment has a character of income in the

hands of the payee, the payer has a duty to deduct tax and the

deductor is not concerned whether on regular assessment, the

Department will find the income chargeable or otherwise. The

provision has adequate safeguards. If a deductor is unsure whether

the particular payment is deductible he can under Sub-section (2)

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 58 wp1325.10

of Section 195 seek a clarification. The obligation to deduct tax is

not extinguished merely because the payment is made by a non-

resident to another non-resident outside in India. If the amount

paid has nexus with India, it is the duty of the payer either to

deduct tax or to approach the Department and seek a clarification

on whether the deduction should be made.

55.

The submission can now be considered.

Structuring business for tax planning :

56. Indian Law recognises that an assessee, who engages in

legitimate business activity and organizes business around accepted

legal structures is entitled to plan his transactions in a manner that

would reduce the incidence of tax. An assessee who does so, does

not tread upon a moral dilemma or risk a legal invalidation. There

is a recognition in our law of the principle that lawful forms of

activity can legitimately be arranged by those who transact

business to plan for tax implications. So long as the legal

structures that are put into place and the instruments of law that

are utilized have been utilized bona fide for a business purpose,

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 59 wp1325.10

fiscal law - absent statutory provisions to the contrary - does not

permit an enquiry into the motives of the assessee or an

investigation into the underlying economic interest. But a

transaction which is sham or, what the law describes as a

colourable device, stands on an entirely different foundation. A

transaction which is sham is one in which though parties employ a

legal form, it is in reality a different transaction; one which in

reality does not give rise to the legal rights and obligations which

arise from its ostensible nature. A sham is ostensible but not real

and borders on a fraudulent employment of legal form or structure

in aid of collateral ends. Absent a case of a transaction which is

sham, fraudulent or colourable, the law respects instruments and

structures adopted by business entities within the framework of

law in the pursuit of legitimate forms of business activity. The

legal character of the transaction will not be disregarded in pursuit

of substance. So long as parties have not chosen to conceal the

nature of their legal relationship by a device which suggests to the

contrary or something at divergence with the legal character

assumed by them, the law respects their autonomy.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 60 wp1325.10

57. Over six decades ago, in 1940, the Privy Council in Bank

of Chettinad Ltd vs. C.I.T.,1 observed thus:

"Their Lordships think it necessary once more, to protest against the suggestion that in revenue cases, 'the substance of a matter' may be regarded as distinguished from the strict legal position."

In 1967, the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Motors and General Stores

(P) Ltd.,2 held that "in the absence of any suggestion of bad faith

or fraud, the true principle is that the taxing statute has to be

applied in accordance with the legal rights of the parties to the

transaction." The Supreme Court held that when the transaction is

embodied in a document between parties, the liability to tax

depends upon the meaning of the language used in accordance

with the ordinary rules of construction. In 1999, a Constitution

Bench of the Supreme Court in Mathuram Agrawal v. State of

Madhya Pradesh,3 dealt with the issue in the following

observations:

"The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume 1 (1940) 8 ITR 522 2 (1967) 66 ITR 692 3 (1999) 8 SCC 667

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 61 wp1325.10

any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. It is not the

economic results sought to be obtained by making the provision which is relevant in interpreting a fiscal statute.

Equally impermissible is an interpretation which does not follow from the plain, unambiguous language of the statute. Words cannot be added to or substituted so as to give a meaning to the statute which will serve the spirit

and intention of the Legislature"

58. The principle of law is that in interpreting fiscal

legislation, the Court is guided by the plain language and the

words used. The Court would not ignore a legal relationship which

arises out of a business transaction in search of substance over form

or in pursuit of the underlying economic interest. This, however,

does not preclude the Legislature from legislating otherwise. In

certain areas of the law, legislation may adopt a look-through

provision which mandates a rigorous scrutiny to trace subjects and

sources. This is a legislative function. Courts do not assume

jurisdiction to themselves to create legislative policy or to legislate

by interpretation for that does not lie within the realm of judicial

power. In matters involving the interpretation of economic and

fiscal legislation, Courts follow interpretative techniques which

promote certainty in the application of law. Certainty requires

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 62 wp1325.10

Courts to don a traditional, if even conservative role, by following

precedent, maintaining interpretational discipline and recognising

that it lies within the realm of legislative policy to alter settled legal

doctrine. The need for certainty is accentuated in fiscal and

economic matters by two other considerations which are of

significance. The first is the perceived lack of expertise on the part

of Courts to make the complex decisions that affect fiscal and

monetary policy in a seamless world of technology and finance.

The second is the constitutional deference to the executive in

drawing a balance in matters involving economic and financial

policy, based on the fact that it is the executive which is

accountable, in a society based on democratic governance, to

Parliament and ultimately the people. Questions such as where

the balance should lie in safeguarding the revenue on the one hand

and encouraging foreign direct investment on the other involve

policy choices. Judicial doctrine which is designedly intended by

the Constitution to be isolated from the rough and tumble of

democratic accountability to electoral colleges must, therefore, be

structured so as not to intrude upon the field of legislative policies

which lies within the domain of Parliament.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 63 wp1325.10

Azadi Bachao

59. On 1 April 1983 the Governments of India and Mauritius

entered into a Convention on the Avoidance of Double Taxation.

The object of the Convention was to avoid double taxation and to

prevent fiscal evasion of taxes on income and capital gains and to

encourage mutual trade and investment. Article 13 of the

Convention enunciated rules for taxation of capital gains and

Clause 4 provided that gains derived by the alienation of shares by

a resident of a contracting state shall be taxable only in that state.

Capital gains derived by a resident of Mauritius on the alienation of

shares were taxable only in Mauritius. Article 4 defined the

expression "resident of a contracting state" to be a person who

under the laws of that state is liable to taxation therein by reason

of his domicile, residence, place of management or a criterion of a

similar nature. By a circular dated 30 March 1994, CBDT in

exercise of powers under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act 1961

clarified that capital gains derived by any resident of Mauritius on

the alienation of shares of an Indian company shall be taxable only

in Mauritius according to the taxation laws of that country and

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 64 wp1325.10

would not be liable to tax in India. Notwithstanding this, the

income tax authorities issued notices to show cause in 2000 to

Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) to explain why they should

not be taxed for profits and dividends which accrued to them in

India. The basis of the notices was that the recipients were shell

companies incorporated in Mauritius whose main purpose was

investment of funds in India. Moreover, it was alleged that those

companies were controlled and managed from countries other than

India and Mauritius and not by residents of Mauritius so as to

derive the benefits of the Convention. Confronted by a withdrawal

of funds by FIIs, CBDT issued a circular on 13 April 2000 clarifying

that such entities incorporated under the laws of Mauritius would

be considered as residents of Mauritius in accordance with the

Convention and that when a certificate of residence is issued by

Mauritian authorities, that shall constitute sufficient evidence for

accepting the status of residence and beneficial ownership for

applying the Convention. This was to also apply to income from

capital gains on the sale of shares and accordingly such entities

resident in Mauritius would not be taxable in India on income from

capital gains arising in India on the sale of shares.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 65 wp1325.10

60. The circular issued by the CBDT was quashed by the

Delhi High Court, in public interest petitions, on the ground inter

alia that the circular was ultra vires the powers of the CBDT insofar

as it directed income tax authorities to accept a certificate of

residence issued by the authorities in Mauritius as sufficient

evidence of the residential status of such an entity. The Delhi High

Court held that the Income Tax Officer was entitled to lift the

corporate veil to determine as to whether a company was actually

resident in Mauritius and to find out whether the corporate veil

had been adopted to avoid payment of tax. The Delhi High Court

faulted the circular on the ground that the power of the Assessing

Officer to pass orders holding that such entities had only a "paper

existence in Mauritius without any economic impact" had been

taken away. The judgment of the Delhi High Court was challenged

by the Union of India before the Supreme Court.

61. The Supreme Court held that Section 90 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961, enabled the Central Government to enter into an

agreement with the Government of any foreign state inter alia for

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 66 wp1325.10

the avoidance of double taxation and once such an agreement was

entered into the provisions of the Act would apply only to the

extent to which they were more beneficial to the assessee. The

Central Government was empowered to make provisions necessary

for implementing the agreement. The Supreme Court held that the

circular was within the purview of Section 90 and would prevail

even if it was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act in relation

to assessees covered by the convention.

62. Before the Supreme Court, the Respondents criticized the

act of incorporation of FIIs under Mauritian law as sham and a

device actuated by improper motives. The Supreme Court adverted

to the dictum of Lord Tomlin in IRC v. Duke of Westminster4 that

a person "is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax

attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would

be". The Court also referred to the earlier statement by Lord

Sumner in IRC v. Fisher's Executors5 that "the highest authorities

have always recognized that the subject is entitled so to arrange his

affairs as not to attract taxes imposed by the Crown, so far as he

4 (1936) AC 1 (HL).

5 (1926) AC 395.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 67 wp1325.10

can do so within the law, and that he may legitimately claim the

advantage of any expressed terms or of any omissions that he can

find in his favour in taxing Acts". The Supreme Court held that

far from being exorcised in its country or region, the dictum in

Duke of Westminster's case "continues to be alive and kicking in

England". In holding thus, the Supreme Court noted that

subsequent decisions of the House of Lords in Craven v. White6,

Furniss v. Dawson7 and W.T. Ramsay Ltd. v. IRC8 did not affect

the validity of the principle which had been laid down in the Duke

of Westminster's case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the

judgment of the majority of the Court in McDowell and Co. Ltd.

& Commercial Tax Officer9 regarded tax planning as legitimate

provided it was within the frame work of law. What was frowned

upon were colourable devices resorted to with the object of

avoiding the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. The

judgment of the Delhi High Court was reversed.

63. The following principles are now firmly embedded in our

6 (1988) 3 ALL ER 495.

7 (1984) 1 All ER 530 (HL).

8 (1982) AC 300.

9 (1985) 154 ITR 148.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 68 wp1325.10

jurisprudence :

-(i) A transaction or arrangement which is permissible under

law which has the effect of reducing the tax burden of an assessee

does not incur the wrath of the law;

-(ii) Citizens and business entities are entitled to structure or

plan their affairs with circumspection and within the framework of

law with a view to reduce the incidence of tax;

(iii) A transaction which is sham or which is a colourable

device cannot be countenanced. A transaction which is sham or a

colourable device is one in which the parties while ostensibly

seeking to clothe the transaction with a legal form, actually engage

in a different transaction altogether. A transaction which serves no

business purpose other than the avoidance of tax is not a legitimate

business transaction and in the application of fiscal legislation can

be disregarded. Such transactions involve only a pretense and a

facade to avoid compliance with tax obligations;

-(iv) Absent a case of a transaction which is sham or a

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 69 wp1325.10

colourable device, an assessee is entitled to structure business

through the instrument of genuine legal frameworks. An act which

is otherwise valid in law cannot be disregarded merely on the basis

of some underlying motive resulting in some economic detriment

or prejudice. In interpreting a fiscal statute it is not the economic

result sought to be obtained by making the provision which is of

relevance and the duty of the Court is to follow the plain and

unambiguous language of the statute.

Kharwar : the issue of subtance vs. form:

64. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. B.M. Kharwar10, a

partnership firm closed the manufacturing part of its business and

transferred its machinery to a private limited company in the share

capital of which the partners had the same interest. The Assessing

Officer brought to tax the excess realized over the written down

value of the machinery. The High Court held that in a tax case it

would not look at the form which a transaction has, but at the real

nature of the transaction and that though legally the transaction

10 (1969) 72 ITR 603.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 70 wp1325.10

was a sale, in substance it was only a readjustment made by certain

persons to carry on business in one form than in another. The

Supreme Court held that it was "now well settled that the taxing

authorities are not entitled in determining whether a receipt is

liable to be taxed to ignore the legal character of the transaction

which is the source of the receipt and to proceed on what they

regard as "the substance of the matter". The Supreme Court

observed that while the authorities are bound to determine the true

legal relations resulting from a transaction yet if the parties have

chosen to conceal a legal relationship by a device, it would be open

to them to unravel the device and determine the true character of

the relationship. However, the Supreme Court noted that "the

legal effect of a transaction cannot be displaced by probing into the

substance of the transaction".

Walfort

65. These principles have now been reiterated in a recent

judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 71 wp1325.10

v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 11. While construing

the provisions of Section 14A and Section 94(7) of the Income Tax

Act 1961 Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia, the Learned Chief Justice of

India, observed as follows :

"At the outset, we may state that we have two sets of cases before us. The lead matter covers assessment years before insertion of Section 94(7) vide Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002. With regard to such cases we may

state that on facts it is established that there was a "sale".

The sale price was received by the assessee. That, the

assessee did receive dividend. The fact that the dividend received was tax-free is the position recognized under Section 10(33) of the Act. The assessee had made use of

the said provision of the Act. That such use cannot be called "abuse of law". Even assuming that the transaction was pre-planned there is nothing to impeach the genuineness of the transaction. With regard to the

ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [154 ITR 148(S)], it may be stated that in the later

decision of this Court in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [263 ITR 706 (SC)]it has been held that a citizen is free to carry on its business within the four

corners of the law. That, mere tax planning, without any motive to evade taxes through colourable devices is not frowned upon even by the judgment of this Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd.'s case (supra)."

66. The governing principle therefore is that tax planning is

legitimate so long as the assessee does not resort to a colourable

device or a sham transaction with a view to evade taxes. A genuine

11 2010(6) Scale 471.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 72 wp1325.10

transaction within the framework of law will not be impeached.

Shares as capital assets :

67. Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 defines the

expression "capital asset" to mean "property of any kind held by an

assessee, whether or not connected with his business or

profession". The definition proceeds to list in clauses (i) to (vi)

what is not included within the ambit of the expression. Clause

42A of Section 2 defines the expression "short-term capital asset" to

mean a capital asset held by an assessee for not more than thirty-

six months immediately preceding the date of its transfer. The

proviso stipulates, inter alia, that in the case of a share held in a

Company or any other security listed in a recognised stock

exchange in India, the provisions of the clause would have effect as

if the words "twelve months" have been substituted for "thirty-six

months". Sub-clause (c) of Clause (i) to Explanation 1 provides

that in determining the period for which any capital asset is held by

the assessee, in a case where the asset consists of a share of an

Indian Company which becomes the property of the assessee in

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 73 wp1325.10

consideration of a transfer referred to in clause (vii) of Section 47,

the period for which the shares in the amalgamating company were

held by the assessee shall be included. Shares constitute capital

assets within the meaning of clause (14) of Section 2. Shares are

recognized as assets and a transfer of shares is recognized in clause

(42A) of Section 2. Clause 47 of Section 2 defines the expression

"transfer" in relation to a capital asset to include a sale of the asset.

The definition of the expression "transfer" artificially brings in

certain cases where in law, there may not have been a transfer. For

instance, a transaction by which possession of immovable property

is taken or retained in part performance of a contract under Section

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is brought within the

ambit of the provision. Similarly, by sub-clause (vi) any

transaction which has the effect of transferring or enabling the

enjoyment of any immovable property, is within the ambit of the

expression "transfer". Sub-section (1) of Section 45 brings to tax

any profits or gains arising from a transfer of a capital asset

effected in the previous year under the head of "capital gains".

Principles governing shares and the rights of shareholders.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 74 wp1325.10

68. Now, at the outset, it must be noted that under the

general principles of law, a share as a chose in action comprises of

an indivisible set of rights, not capable of being separately

transferred at law. (Gore Browne on Companies).12 Under the

Indian Law, the privilege of membership can be exercised only by a

person whose name is entered in the Register of Members. In

Balkrishna Gupta vs. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd.,13 the Supreme

Court held, while applying this principle that a receiver whose

name is not entered in the Register of Members, cannot exercise

any of the rights and privileges of membership unless in a

proceeding to which the Company is a party an order to that effect

has been passed. Several rights emanate from the holding of

shares including principally (i) The right to vote at a general

meeting; (ii) The right to requisition an extra-ordinary general

meeting; (iii) The right to receive a notice of a general meeting;

(iv) The right to appoint a proxy and inspect a Proxy Register; (v)

In the case of a body corporate which is a member of the Company,

the right to attend a general meeting on its behalf; (vi) The right to

receive dividend; and (vii) The right to require the Company to

12 Volume 2 Chapter 23-2 13 (1985) 2 SCC 167

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 75 wp1325.10

circulate its resolutions. These rights attach to and are inseparable

from the ownership of shares. A Company recognizes as its

members, persons whose names are borne on the Register of

Members to whom dividend declared by a company is payable. As

between the transferor and transferee certain equities may arise at

law. Among them, is the right to claim the dividend declared and

paid by the Company. These equities, however, as noted by the

Supreme Court, "do not touch the Company, and no claim by the

transferee whose name is not in the Register of Members can be

made against the Company." As between the shareholders in a

Company, the right to vote belongs to a person legally entitled to

the shares by reason of his presence on the Register of Members.

Even an order of attachment does not deprive the holder of shares

to the title to shares.

69. Ownership of shares may in certain situations result in

the assumption of an interest which has the character of a

controlling interest in the management of the Company. The

extent of shareholding which is sufficient to vest in the holder of

shares an interest which assumes the character of a controlling

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 76 wp1325.10

interest may again vary from case to case. In C.I.T. vs. Messrs

Jeewanlal Ltd.,14 a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court,

while considering the ambit of the expression "controlling interest"

under Section 2(21) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, defined the

concept thus:

"In common parlance a person is said to have a "controlling interest" in a company when such a person

acquires, by purchase or otherwise, the majority of the vote-carrying shares in that company, for the control of

the company resides in the voting powers of its shareholders. In this sense, the directors of a company may well be regarded as having "a controlling interest"

in the company when they hold and are entered in the share register as holders of the majority of the shares which, under the Articles of Association of the company, carry the right to vote."

The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that when a

shareholder, holding a majority of the shares, authorised an agent

to vote for him, the agent acquired no interest, legal or beneficial,

for the title to the shares continued to vest in the shareholder.

70. A controlling interest does not for the purpose of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 constitute a distinct capital asset. That is

14 (1953) 24 ITR 475

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 77 wp1325.10

simply because the assumption of control is a right which emanates

from the acquisition of a sufficient number of shares in the

Company as would enable the holder of the shares to exercise a

voting power of a degree and nature as would result in a control of

the management. A controlling interest is an incident of the

ownership of the shares in a Company; something which flows out

of the holding of shares. A controlling interest is, therefore, not an

identifiable or distinct capital asset independent of the holding of

shares. In Smt.Maharani Usha Devi vs. C.I.T.,15 the Madhya

Pradesh High Court considered whether in a situation where the

assessee paid an excess over the market price of the shares for the

acquisition of a controlling interest in the Company, such an

interest constituted property under Section 2(14) of the Income

Tax Act, 1961. In that case, the assessee had acquired a large block

of shares at a price substantially higher than the market price. The

Tribunal had held that the price at which shares were acquired by

the assessee did not represent the cost of acquisition because in

addition to the shares, the assessee had acquired a controlling

interest. The excess paid by the assessee was considered by the

15 (1981) 131 ITR 445

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 78 wp1325.10

Tribunal to represent the price of the controlling interest. The

High Court did not find any justification for the view of the

Tribunal and held as follows:

"This view of the Tribunal proceeds on the assumption that controlling interest is a distinct capital asset which

can be acquired or transferred independently of the shares. We see no justification for the view. Controlling interest is an incidence arising from holding a particular number of shares in a company. It cannot be separately

acquired or transferred. It flows from the fact that a number of shares are held by a person. If for acquiring

that number of shares, a person is required to pay more than the market price of a share and if the transaction is genuine, as has been found in the present case, then,

really speaking, the cost of acquisition of the block of shares purchased by the assessee is that which she has in fact paid for holding that block."

Referring to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Baijnath

Chaturbhuj v. CIT,16 where a composite consideration had been

paid by the assessee for the transfer of shares and the assignment

of a Managing Agency, the Court observed that in such a case,

"there should be two distinct assets each capable of being acquired

or transferred separately". However, a controlling interest could

not by itself be acquired or transferred but was an incident which

arose out of the holding of a particular number of shares.

16 (1957) 31 ITR 643

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 79 wp1325.10

71. In Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Mahadeo Jalan,17

the Supreme Court recognised the same legal position in Indian

Law, holding that "a share is not a sum of money, but is an interest

measured by a sum of money made up of various rights contained

in the articles of association." In Vekatesh vs. C.I.T.,18 a Division

Bench of the Madras High Court held that the price paid by the

purchaser of shares even if it was higher than the market price - the

difference representing a controlling interest which was transferred

by the seller to the buyer - nonetheless remains the price for the

shares. The Division Bench held that the Tribunal was correct in

upholding the order of the Commissioner and the Assessing Officer

who had assessed the sum mentioned in the assessment order as

long term capital gains arising out of the sale of the shares held by

the assessee under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In that

context, the Division Bench held thus:

"The fact that the vendor has controlling interest and is in a position to place the vendee in control of the company by transferring all his shares or such part as would enable the vendee to exercise control over the company with the aid of the shares so transferred would only enhance the value of the shares transferred. The 17 (1972) 86 ITR 621 18 (2000) 243 ITR 367

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 80 wp1325.10

price paid by the vendee for acquisition of such shares remains the price of those shares though the price so

paid is higher than the market price. Controlling interest is but an incidence of the shareholding and has no

independent existence."

The Division Bench noted that it was as a result of the control of

shares that the holder was enabled in exercising control of

management and without control over the shares, there could be

no question of any controlling interest. Hence, the price paid for

the shares by the purchaser constituted the price paid for the

acquisition of the shares and the entire consideration would have

to be taken into account for computing the capital gains in the

hands of the seller.

72. In Carew & Company vs. Union of India,19 the

undertaking of the Appellant consisted of a Sugar Factory and two

distilleries. The Sugar Factory was in financial difficulty. The

Appellant proposed to float a Company for taking over the sugar

unit and for working it as an undertaking of the Company to be

formed. The Appellant was to be entitled to the allotment of all the

19 AIR 1975 SC 2260

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 81 wp1325.10

shares of the new Company in addition to the consideration paid

for the transfer of the sugar unit. The Appellant sought the

approval of the Company Law Board under Section 372 of the

Companies' Act, 1956 which was declined. The issue before the

Supreme Court was whether the provisions of Section 23(4) of the

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 were

attracted. These provisions applied where an undertaking

proposed to acquire by purchase, takeover or otherwise, the whole

or part of an undertaking which would result in the creation of an

undertaking to which the Part applied or in an undertaking

becoming an interconnected undertaking of another undertaking to

which the part applied. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme

Court held that by the proposal to acquire all the shares of the

Company which was to be floated, the Appellant could acquire only

control and the right to manage the Company. The Appellant

would not, as a result, acquire the undertaking owned by the new

Company by purchase, takeover or otherwise. Applying the

doctrine that the Company has a distinct juristic personality from

its shareholders, the Supreme Court held that the purchase of all

the shares would not have the effect of an acquisition of the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 82 wp1325.10

undertaking. Dealing, as it was, with regulatory legislation

designed to give effect to the Directive Principles of State policy,

the Supreme Court held that nonetheless Parliament would not be

imputed with the intention of sweeping aside fundamental legal

concepts governing the incorporation of a Company. Mr.Justice

K.K.Mathew, speaking for the Bench, observed as follows:

"It is well settled that a company has separate legal personality apart from its shareholders and it is only the

company as a juristic person that could own the undertaking. Beyond obtaining control and the right of management of Shahjahanpur Sugar Private Ltd., the

purchase of 100 per cent shares had not the effect of an acquisition of the undertaking owned by it. No doubt, on a dissolution of the company, the share-holders would be entitled to a distributive share of the assets of the

company. But it does not follow that while the company is a going concern, the shareholders are the owners of its

assets including any undertaking. It is the company as a separate entity which alone can own the undertaking and the purchase by the appellant of 100 per cent shares did

not make it the owner of the undertaking. We are aware that we are dealing with an economic legislation calculated to give effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy set out in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution and that the purpose of the legislation

should be kept in mind in interpreting its provisions; but we are not prepared to assume that the legislature has, by a side-wind, swept away the well established fundamental legal concepts of the law of corporation in making the legislation."

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 83 wp1325.10

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, consisting of Mr.Justice

D.P.Wadhwa and Mr.Justice Dalveer Bhandari (as their Lordships

then were) in Corrasco Investments Ltd. vs. Special Director,

Enforcement Directorate,20 adopted a similar approach in the

context of Section 29(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation

Act, 1973. Applying the doctrine established by the judgment of

the Supreme Court in Bacha F.Guzdar vs. CIT,21 that the

Company has a juristic personality distinct from its shareholders,

the Delhi High Court held that the undertaking of a Company

cannot be equated with the shares held in a Company. The

judgment of the Delhi High Court held thus:

"The "undertaking" of a company is not the same thing

as "shares" of that company. ... Even though a shareholder acquires a right to participate in the profits of the company, the shareholder acquires no interest in

the assets of the company. The Supreme Court in Mrs.Bacha F.Guzdar v. CIT [1955] 25 Comp Cas 1 (SC); AIR 1955 SC 74, observed that a shareholder had got no right in the property of the company and that it was true that the shareholders had the sole determining voice in

administering the affairs of the company and were entitled, as provided in the articles of association, to declare that dividends should be distributed out of the profits of the company to the shareholders but the interest of the shareholder either individually or collectively did not amount to more than a right to participate in the profits of the company."

20 (1994) 79 Comp Cases 631 21 (1955) 25 Comp Cases 1

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 84 wp1325.10

In its decision in Bacha Guzdar, which is the locus classicus on the

point, the Supreme Court in a decision of five Learned Judges laid

down the following principle which has been consistently applied.

The principle of law expounded in the case is thus:

"That a shareholder acquires a right to participate in the profits of the company may be readily conceded but it is

not possible to accept the contention that the shareholder acquires any interest in the assets of the

company. .. A shareholder has got no interest in the property of the company though he has undoubtedly a right to participate in the profits if and when the

company decides to divide them. The interest of a shareholder vis-a-vis the company was explained in the Sholapur Mills case, (1950) S.C.R. 869 at 904. That judgment negatives the position taken up on behalf of

the appellant that a shareholder has got a right in the property of the company. It is true that the shareholders

of the company have the sole determining voice in administering the affairs of the company and are entitled, as provided by the articles of association, to

declare that dividends should be distributed out of the profits of the company to the shareholders but the interest of the shareholder either individually or collectively does not amount to more than a right to participate in the profits of the company. The company

is a juristic person and is distinct from the shareholders. It is the company which owns the property and not the shareholders."

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 85 wp1325.10

The principle that companies which are incorporated under the

Companies' Act, 1956 have a corporate personality of their own,

distinct from that of the shareholders was applied in the context of

a Government Company by the Supreme Court in Western

Coalfields Ltd. vs. Special Area Development Authority.22 The

Supreme Court held that as a result, the property of a Company in

which the shareholding was held by the Union of India did not

constitute the property of the Union Government so as to be

exempt from municipal taxation under Article 285(1) of the

Constitution of India.

73. This position has also consistently held the field in the

U.K. In a 1920 decision of Astbury J. in Wise vs. Lansdell,23 the

registered owner of certain fully paid shares of a private Company,

charged them in favour of another and handed over to him blank

transfer deeds. He subsequently, gave other equitable charges to

other mortgagees. On the bankruptcy of the owner his trustees

disclaimed all his interest in the shares. As a blank transfer was not

completed and lodged, the name of the bankrupt remained on the

22 (1982) 1 SCC 125 23 (1921) Chancery Division 420

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 86 wp1325.10

Register. The Court held that as between himself and the

Company, the bankrupt so long as his name remains on the

Register was entitled to vote in respect of the shares though as

between himself and the mortgagees he could only vote as they

dictate. Nearly forty years prior to the decision in Wise Vs.

Lansdell, Chitty, J in re: Wala Wynaad Indian Gold Mining

Mining Co. had observed that a shareholder means "the holder of

the shares" and that the term as commonly used "only means the

person who holds the shares by having his name on the Register."

74. In Inland Revenue Commissioners vs. Bibby & Sons

Ltd.,24 the House of Lords considered whether the Director of a

Company had a controlling interest upon which rested the outcome

of an assessment to excess profits tax. The House of Lords held

that by that expression what was meant was "the extent to which

they have vested in them the power of controlling by votes, the

decisions which will bind the Company in the shape of resolutions

passed by the shareholders in general meeting" and the fact that a

vote carrying share was vested in a Director as a trustee was

24 (1946) 14 ITR (Suppl) 7

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 87 wp1325.10

immaterial. Even if power were exercised in breach of trust, the

vote would be treated as validly cast vis-a-vis the Company and the

resolution would be binding on it. The Control of a Company,

opined the Law Lords, resides in the voting power of its

shareholders. Farwell, J. in a judgment of the Chancery Division

in Borland's Trustee vs. Steel Brothers & Co.Ltd.,25 noted that "a

share is the interest of a shareholder in the Company measured by

a sum of money, for the purpose of liability in the first place, and

of interest in the second, but also consisting of a series of mutual

covenants entered into by all the shareholders inter se" in

accordance with the Companies' Act. A share represents an interest

"made up of various rights contained in the contract, including the

right to a sum of money". The same principle has been reiterated

in the judgment of Viscount Hailsham LC in Commissioner of

Inland Revenue vs. Crossman.26

75. The Court of Appeals in Gramophone & Typewriter Ltd.

vs. Stanley,27 dealt with a case where an English Company which

carried on business in the U.K. held shares of a German Company 25 (1901) 1 Ch 279 26 (1936) 1 All ER 762 27 1908-1910 All ER 833

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 88 wp1325.10

which was registered as a Company of limited liability under

German Law. The members of the Board of the German company

were also directors of the English company. By German law, the

German company was obliged to transfer to its patents account, a

certain sum equivalent to depreciation of the value of patents

owned by it. The Court of Appeals held that despite the fact that

all the shares of the German company belonged to the English

company, the business of the German company did not become the

business of the English company. The German company was an

entity distinct from the German company. Hence, the English

company was not liable to income tax in respect of the amount

transferred to the patents account but only in respect of such

profits of the German company which had actually been received in

the U.K. Sir Herbert Cozens Hardy M.R., placed the issue of

principle thus:

"The fact that an individual by himself or by his

nominees holds practically all the shares in a company may give him the control of the company in the sense that it may enable him by exercising his voting powers to turn out the directors and to enforce his own views as to policy, but it does not in any way diminish the rights or powers of the directors or make the property or assets of the company his as distinct from the corporation's. Nor does it make any difference if he acquires not practically

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 89 wp1325.10

the whole, but absolutely the whole of the shares. The business of the company does not thereby becomes his

business. He is still entitled to receive dividends on his shares, but no more."

Fletcher Moulton, L.J. and Buckley, L.J. held that the English

holder was only liable for such profits as he actually received in the

U.K. by way of dividend and was not responsible for what the

actual profits of the Corporation shall have been. The profits of

the Corporation were not the profits of any business carried on by

them in a foreign country, as the English holders did not carry on

the business of the Corporation:

"This legal proposition that the legal corporator cannot be held to be wholly or partly carrying on the business of

the corporation is not weakened by the fact that the extent of his interest in it entitles him to exercise a greater or less control over the manner in which that

business is carried on. Such control is inseparable from his position as a corporator and is a wholly different thing both in fact and in law from carrying on the business himself. .. The control of individual corporators is something wholly different from the management of

the business itself. Now, is this principle less true when the holding of the individual corporator is so large that he is able to override the wishes of the other corporators in matters relating to the control of the business of the company. The extent but not the nature of his power is changed by the magnitude of his holding."

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 90 wp1325.10

76. The position of law which has consistently held the field

for over a hundred years in the U.K. and for well over five decades

in India, is that the business of a corporation is not the business of

its shareholders. The undertaking and the assets of a corporation

are not the undertaking and assets of its shareholders. A

corporation as an entity incorporated under legislation governing

companies has a distinct juristic personality. A shareholder has

during the subsistence of the corporate personality, no interest in

the assets owned by the corporation. The right of the shareholder

is to participate in the profits by receiving the dividend that may be

declared by the corporation. A share represents an interest of a

shareholder which is made up of various rights contained in the

contract embodied in the Articles of Association. The right of a

shareholder may assume the character of a controlling interest

where the extent of the shareholding enables the shareholder to

control the management. A controlling interest which a

shareholder acquires is an incident of the holding of shares and

has no separate or identifiable existence distinct from the

shareholding. The extent of the power of the shareholder would

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 91 wp1325.10

depend upon the magnitude of the holding but the nature of the

power is not altered by it. Shares and the rights which emanate

from them, flow together and cannot be dissected. In the felicitous

phrase of Lord Macmillan in Crossman, shares in a Joint Stock

Company consist of a "congearies of rights and liabilities" which

are a creature of the Companies' Acts and the Memorandum and

Articles of the particular company. The rights and liabilities

appurtenant to a share may vary widely within the law, but they

cannot exist independently of the inherent attributes with which a

share has been created. Control and management is one facet of

the holding of shares.

Taxation of non-residents:

77. The jurisdiction of a State to tax non-residents is based

on the existence of a nexus connecting the person sought to be

taxed with the jurisdiction which seeks to tax. The nexus may arise

as a result of the physical presence of the non-resident. The nexus

of a non-resident with the taxing jurisdiction arises where the

source of income originates in the jurisdiction. The source of

income is determined in accordance with source rules. The source

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 92 wp1325.10

of income may be relevant in a number of ways. For example, the

source enables the taxing jurisdiction to determine whether a

country may tax a particular item of income under the source

principle of taxation or to determine whether the income has a

foreign source so as to be eligible for a foreign tax credit. The

source principle of taxation is also used to refer to the category of

income from which a particular item of income originates. The

source principle of taxation is a principle for allocating taxing

jurisdiction over income, according to which a country may tax

income having its source in that country, regardless of the

residence of the tax payer.28 Nations recognize that both the

country of residence and the country of source have a valid claim

to tax income. Explaining this, Professor Michael J.Graetz of the

Yale Law School in his Foundations of International Income

Taxation notes that in contrast, a nation that is neither the country

of source, or of residence or citizenship, is generally not

recognized as having a right to tax.29 If both, the resident and

source country exercised their right to tax simultaneously, this is

28IBFD International Tax Glossary revised 6th edition, Ed.Julie Rogers-Glabush pp 294, 394.

29Michael J. Graetz, Professor of Law, Yale Law School: Foundations of International Income Taxation (Foundation Press 2003).

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 93 wp1325.10

liable to result in double tax which is generally regarded as being

unfair because it may create substantial barriers to cross border

activity and investment. International tax policy seeks to mediate

between the claims of residents and source in an effort to ensure

that income is taxed only once. In India international agreements

on the avoidance of double taxation, such as the one with

Mauritius, are sanctified by Section 90 of the Income Tax Act,

1961.

Section 5(2) and Section 9(1) : identification of nexus :

78. The charge of income tax under Sub-section (1) of

Section 4 is on the total income of every person for a previous year

at the rate or rates enacted in a Central Act. Under sub section (1)

of Section 5, in the case of a person who is a resident, the total

income of any previous year includes all income from whatever

source it is derived, which is received, accrues or arises or is

deemed to be received, accrued or arise in India. The global

income of a person resident in India is brought within the ambit of

total income. In the case of a resident, the nexus for the purposes

of taxation is provided by residence in India, and hence, income

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 94 wp1325.10

irrespective of where it is earned, is brought within the purview of

the total income that is chargeable to tax. In the case of a non-

resident, Sub-section (2) of Section 5 enunciates that the total

income of any previous year would include all income from

whatever source derived which (i) is received or is deemed to be

received in India by or on behalf of such person; or (ii) accrues or

arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such

year. Hence, in the case of a non-resident, the nexus for the

purpose of chargeability to income tax is provided by the receipt or

accrual of the income in India.

79. Sub-section (1) of Section 9 stipulates incomes which

shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. Clause (i) of sub-

section (1) is to the following effect :

"(i) all income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, or through or from any property in India, or

through or from any asset or source of income in India, or through the transfer of a capital asset situate in India."

Explanation (1) provides in clause (a) that where all the operations

of a business are not carried out in India, the income of the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 95 wp1325.10

business which is deemed to accrue or arise in India, shall be only

such part of the income as is reasonably attributable to the

operations carried out in India. Clause (b) stipulates that in the

case of a non-resident, no income shall be deemed to accrue or

arise in India from operations confined to the purchase of goods

within the country for the purpose of export. Explanation (2)

declares that for the removal of doubts that "business connection"

shall include any business activity carried out through a person

who, acting on behalf of the non-resident, -

"(a) has and habitually exercises in India, an authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the non-resident, unless his activities are limited to the purchase of goods or

merchandise for the non-resident; or

-(b) has no such authority, but habitually maintains in India a stock of goods or merchandise from which he regularly delivers goods or merchandise on behalf of the

non-resident; or

-(c) habitually secures orders in India, mainly or wholly for the non-resident or for that non-resident and other non-residents controlling, controlled by, or subject to the

same common control, as that non-resident:"

Under the proviso, however, a business activity carried out through

a broker, or an agent with an independent status, acting in the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 96 wp1325.10

ordinary course of business, is not to constitute a business

connection. Whether, however, a broker or an agent works mainly

or wholly on behalf of a non-resident or the non-resident and other

non-residents controlled by the principal non-resident or having a

controlling interest in the principal non-resident or subject to

common control, he shall not be deemed to be an agent with an

independent status.

80. By the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5, the

income of a non-resident from whatever source derived is

includible in the total income if it is received or deemed to be

received in India or if it accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or

arise to him in India during the year. Breaking down sub section

(2) into is components, it covers income of a non-resident which

(i) is received in India; (ii) accrues in India; (iii) arises in India;

(iv) is deemed to be received in India; (v) is deemed to accrue in

India; or (vi) is deemed to arise in India.

81. Income is said to accrue or arise when the assessee has a

right to receive the income. The words "accrue" and "arise" are

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 97 wp1325.10

used in distinction to the word "receive". The words "accrue and

arise" indicate a right to receive. In Seth Pushalal vs. C.I.T.,30 a

Bench of three Learned Judges of the Supreme Court adopted this

test in determining the ambit of the expressions "accrue" and

"arise":

"The words "accrue" and "arise" do not mean actual receipt of the profits or gains. Both these words are used

in contradistinction to the word "receive" and indicate a right to receive. ... It is clear, therefore, that the income

may accrue to an assessee without actual receipt of the same. If the assessee acquires a right to receive the income, the income can be said to accrue to him, though

it may be received later, on its being ascertained. The basic conception is that he must have acquired a right to receive the income (see E.D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1954) 26 ITR 51."

Section 9(1) defines the circumstances in which income is deemed

to accrue or arise in India. Sub-section (1) of Section 9 defines in

clause (i), income which shall be deemed to accrue or arise in

India. Sub clause (i) is in turn, distributed into four categories.

These categories cover income accruing or arising, whether directly

or indirectly: (i) Through or from any business connection in India;

(ii) Through or from any property in India; (iii) Through or from

30 (1967) 66 ITR 159

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 98 wp1325.10

any asset or source of income in India; or (iv) Through the transfer

of a capital asset situated in India. In each of these four categories,

the law has postulated the existence of a nexus with India which

invokes taxing jurisdiction. The nexus is provided in the case of

the first category from a business connection in India; in the

second, by the situs of the property in India; in the third, from any

asset or source of income in India; and in the fourth, by the situs

of the capital asset which is transferred, in India. Parliament has

been careful to ensure that even while adopting a deeming fiction

in defining incomes which are deemed to accrue or arise in India

that there must exist a nexus with India upon which the

jurisdiction to tax is founded.

Apportionment :

82. In certain instances which are known to tax legislation, a

need for apportioning income arises when the source rule applies

and the income can be taxed in more than one jurisdiction.

Judicial precedent emanating from the Supreme Court and the

High Courts has analysed situations where a person has earned

profits on the sale and purchase of goods abroad or where an

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 99 wp1325.10

assessee engages in a composite activity - such as manufacture and

sale - and one component takes place within the jurisdiction of the

taxing territory, while another has occurred outside the taxing

jurisdiction. Such instances have arisen in British India. A question

of apportionment has arisen.

83. In C.I.T. vs. Chunilal B.Mehta,31 the assessee was a

resident of British India and was held liable during the course of

assessment proceedings to pay tax upon profits derived by him

from contracts made for the purchase and sale of goods in foreign

markets outside British India. The assessee disputed his liability in

respect of such profits on the ground that they were not profits

"accruing or arising in British India". Sir George Rankin, delivering

the judgment of the Privy Council, held that it was not possible to

lay down any rule of general application to all classes of foreign

transaction for, to do so would be "nearly impossible and wholly

unwise". The Privy Council held that a person resident in British

India, carrying on business there and controlling transactions

abroad in the course of such business, was not by these mere facts

31 AIR 1938 PC 232

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 100 wp1325.10

liable to tax on the profits of such transactions. If the profits were

not received in or brought into British India, it became necessary to

consider whether they accrue or arise there. In certain cases, the

place of the formation of the contract would prevail while in

another acts done under the contract could not be ruled out a

priori. In that case, the Privy Council held that the contracts were

neither framed, nor carried out in British India and the High

Court's conclusion that the profits accrued or arose outside British

India was well founded.

84. In C.I.T. vs. Ahmadbhai Umarbhai,32 an assessee was a

resident of British India and besides a manufacturing facility in

Mumbai, had a manufacturing unit in the State of Hyderabad at

Raichur. The assessee contended that a part of the profits derived

from sale in British India of oil manufactured at Raichur, was

attributable to the manufacturing operation at Raichur and should

be excluded from assessment for excess profits tax. Chief Justice

Harilal Kania, who delivered one of the judgments of the

Constitution Bench, held that the question as to where income has

32 (1950) 18 ITR 472

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 101 wp1325.10

accrued has to be determined on the facts of each case. The

income may accrue or arise at the place of the source or elsewhere.

When the manufacturing portion of the activity of the assessee was

in one province and the sale in another, the whole of the profits

would not necessarily be construed as arising from the sale though

they may be received from the sale of the product. The profits

could be apportioned between manufacturing and trading

activities, particularly when the assessee carried on business of a

manufacturer and trader together. Under Section 42 of the Income

Tax Act, 1922, an apportionment could be carried out for

ascertaining the profits of a business, a part only of whose

operations were carried out in British India where such part could

be regarded either as "a business connection in British India" or "a

source of income in British India". The result was that the profits

received at Bombay from the sale of oil manufactured at Raichur

were liable to be apportioned under sub-Section (3) between the

two operations of manufacture and sale and only such portion of

the profits as was reasonably attributable to the sale could be

deemed to accrue or arise in British India. The rest of the profits

attributable to the manufacture at Raichur would have to be

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 102 wp1325.10

regarded as accruing or arising at Hyderabad State. Mr.Justice

Mahajan in his judgment also emphasized that it was the operation

of manufacture at Raichur that enabled the assessee to sell oil and

some portion of the profits must necessarily be attributable to the

manufacturing process. In the case of a composite business where

a person carries on a number of businesses or activities, the profit

or loss would have to be apportioned between the different

businesses and activities.

85. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai is an illustration of the

application of the doctrine of apportionment where an assessee

carries on multiple activities as part of a composite business which

straddles more than one taxing jurisdiction. The income which

results from those activities has to be apportioned so as to

determine what part of the income can be attributable to the

business which is carried on in the taxing jurisdiction. Such a

principle of apportionment of business income is adopted in the

Act of 1961 in clause (a) of Explanation (1) to Section 9(1)(i). The

need for apportionment arises when the source rule applies and the

income can be taxed in more than one jurisdiction. Apportionment

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 103 wp1325.10

pre-supposes a multiplicity of activities from which income accrues

or arises.

86. In Seth Pushalal Mansinghka (P) Ltd. vs. C.I.T.

(supra), a Bench of three Learned Judges dealt with a case where

the assessee had mica mines and a factory at Bhilwara in Rajasthan

which was a Part-B State. After processing, the mica was exported

to locations in Part A and C States and was sold to purchasers

there. The Supreme Court held that the profits had accrued to the

assessee at the place where the sales were effected and the

property in the goods passed to purchasers. The assessee became

entitled to the price of the goods only when the title to the goods

passed to purchasers in the Part A and C States and the income

was, therefore, regarded as having accrued in those States.

87. In Chainrup Sampatram vs. Commissioner of Income

Tax, West Bengal,33 the assessee which was a partnership firm,

carried on business at Calcutta and despatched in the year of

account bars of silver to the Indian State of Bikaner where the

33 (1953) 24 ITR 481

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 104 wp1325.10

partners resided and their value at cost was credited in the

assessee's books. The case of the assessee that the silver had been

sold to the partners was found not to be genuine and the finding

was that the silver still formed a part of the assessee's stock-in-

trade. In the assessment, a sum representing the excess arising

from the valuation of the silver bars at the market rate at which

the rest of the closing stock at Calcatta was valued was included.

Affirming the finding that the aforesaid value was in law,

assessable to tax, the Supreme Court held that it was a

misconception to presume that any profit arises out of the

valuation of closing stock and the situs of its arising or accrual is

where the valuation is made. The valuation of the unsold stock at

the close of an accounting period was held to be a necessary part of

determining the trading results and was not the "source" of such

profits. The Supreme Court held that the place where the

valuation was made could not be regarded as the situs of accrual

and observed that "the source of profits and gains of a business is

indubitably and the place of their accrual is where the business is

carried on". The judgment is, therefore, a precedent for the

proposition that the place of the accrual of the profits and gains of

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 105 wp1325.10

a business, is the place where the business is carried on since the

source of those profits is the business itself.

88. A decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High

Court in Income Tax Officer vs. Shriram Bearings Ltd.,34 involved

an agreement between the Respondent and a Japanese Company.

The agreement consisted of two parts, one for the sale of trade

secrets and the other for technical assistance. The agreement

specifically recorded that the sale of the trade secrets was effected

in Japan. The consideration for both parts of the agreement was

separately provided. On these facts, the Calcutta High Court held

that the transaction of the sale and purchase of trade secrets took

in Japan and the entire consideration was paid in Japan. No part

of the activity or operation was carried on by the non-resident

Company in India.

89. While affirming the judgment of the Calcutta High Court,

the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer vs. Shriram Bearings

Ltd.,35 held :

34 (1987) 164 ITR 419 35 (1997) 224 ITR 724

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 106 wp1325.10

"The agreement is in two parts. It is true that the two parts are interdependent but yet the consideration for the

sale of trade secrets and consideration of technical assistance is separately provided for and mentioned

under separate sections. So far as the consideration for the technical assistance is concerned, its taxability is not in doubt. The only controversy is with respect to the taxability of 1,65,000 U.S. dollars which is stipulated as

the consideration for sale of trade secrets. The agreement specifically says that the said sale is effected in Japan. We are unable to see on what basis it can be said that any part of the said amount has been earned in

India."

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court, therefore, clearly

proceeded on the basis that the sale of the trade secrets took place

outside India and that no part of the activity or operation of the

non-resident company was carried on in India. The judgment of

the Supreme Court emphasized that the sale of the trade secrets

had taken place in Japan. The Supreme Court held that no part of

the amount had been earned in India.

90. In the context of the transfer of a capital asset, there is a

judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court consisting of

S.B.Sinha, C.J. (as His Lordship then was) and A.K.Sikri, J. in C.I.T.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 107 wp1325.10

vs. Quantas Airways Ltd.36 Quantas which is a non-resident

incorporated in Australia carried on a worldwide air transport

business and sold aircraft which were its capital assets. The sales

were effected outside India. The question before the Delhi High

Court was as to whether the sale of such capital assets was

income proportionately assessable in terms of the provisions of the

Act. Both the Commissioner of Appeals and the Tribunal had

disapproved the view of the Assessing Officer that the profits

arising out of the sale of a capital asset would be income at the

hands of the assessee. The Delhi High Court held that while capital

gains may be income, that would have been so if the transaction

has taken place either in India or through or from any property in

India or from any asset or source of income from India or through

the transfer of a capital asset situated in India. The assessee only

had some part of its business operation in India. Its capital assets

has nothing to do with the business connection in India and the

words "business connection" for the purposes of Sections 5 and 9

are confined to profits arising out of business. The Delhi High

Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs.

36 256 ITR 84

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 108 wp1325.10

R.D.Aggarwal & Co.,37 in which it was noted that the expression

"business connection" postulates a real and intimate relation

between the trading activity carried out outside the taxing territory

and trading activity within the territory, and the relation between

the two, contributes to the earning of income by the non-resident

in his trading activity. The Delhi High Court held as follows:

"Having regard to the purport and object thereof, if the words "business connection in India" were wide enough

to cover all transactions including transactions in capital assets, in our opinion, there was no reason for Parliament to specifically include income (a) through or

from any property in India, (b) through or from any asset or source of income from India, and (c) through or from sale of a capital asset situate in India.

The very fact that in terms of section 9 of the Act, the transfer of a capital asset situate in India has

been brought within the purview of the deemed income under section 9 of the Act and rule 10(ii) of the Rules, the intention of Parliament was not to bring within its

purview any income derived out of sale or purchase of a capital asset effected outside India."

91. In the case of a capital asset clause (i) of Sub-section (1)

of Section 9 postulates that the income must accrue or arise by the

transfer of a capital asset situated in India. The situs of the capital

asset is the crucial jurisdictional condition that must be fulfilled in

37 (1965) 56 ITR 20

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 109 wp1325.10

order to attract chargeability to tax of income arising from the

transfer of a capital asset. The statutory provision recognizes the

principle that income from the transfer of a capital asset arises at

the place where the asset is situated. The situs of the capital asset

within India is what determines exigibility to tax.

92. Having now dealt with the position in Indian law, it

would be appropriate to turn to the transnational law on the

subject.

Transnational Law :

93. Transnational law recognizes that the jurisdiction of a

State to tax non-residents is based on the existence of a nexus of

the person sought to be taxed or his activities with the taxing

jurisdiction. Such nexus may exist either as a result of physical

presence or, in relation to the source rule, where the income

earned by the non-resident has a source in the taxing jurisdiction.

94. Shares constitute capital assets and are recognized to be

so in transnational jurisdictions. Dicey, Morris and Collins in their

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 110 wp1325.10

seminal work on The Conflict of Laws,38 explain the situs of shares

thus:

"(7) Shares in companies ... the basic principle here is that shares are situate in the country where, under the law of the country in which the company was incorporated, they can be effectively dealt with as

between the owner for the time being and the company.

The law of the place of incorporation of the company decides how shares in the company may be transferred. If they may be transferred only by registration on a

particular register, they will be regarded as situate at the place where the register is kept."

The reason for this, note the authors, is that shares as an interest

in a company are subject to the law of the place of incorporation of

the company, which governs all matters concerning the

constitution of the company.

95. As far back as in 1924, the Privy Council in Brassard vs.

Smith,39 recognized that the evidence of title to shares would be

the Register of shareholders and the situs of the property would be

where the register is situated. A person who was a resident of

Nova Scotia died there owning shares in a Bank which were

38Fourteenth Edition, under the general editorship of Sir Lawrence Collins, Sweet & Maxwell 2006 Edition, Vol.2 pages 1125-6 39 (1925) AC 371

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 111 wp1325.10

registered at an office maintained by the Company in the same

province. The company had its head office in the province of

Quebec. The Privy Council followed the established principle that

a transfer, in the case of shares, is effectuated by a change in the

register where the shares are registered and the shares could be

effectively dealt with only at that place.

96.

The Petitioner in the present case, has filed expert

opinions from diverse jurisdictions for elucidating the principles

adopted in several jurisdictions for invoking the jurisdiction to tax

non-residents. These opinions explain the position under the laws

of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy,U.K. and the U.S.

The expert opinions indicate that corporate structures of groups of

multi-national enterprises have evolved and gained in complexity

over a long period of time in response to a variety of

considerations. The ownership structure of various assets and

businesses may be segregated or aggregated to enable various

assets, interest in assets or groups of assets to be dealt with either

separately or in common by dealing with the shares of the

Company or Companies formed to hold those assets, interests or

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 112 wp1325.10

groups of assets.

97. In Australia, the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) regime

prescribes under Provision 855, rules applicable to non-residents.

Taxable Australian property is defined to include an indirect

Australian real property interest. Where a CGT event happens in

relation to an indirect Australian real property interest owned by a

non-resident, the non-resident is subject to Australian tax. An

entity (the holding entity) has an indirect Australian real property

interest in another entity if the holding entity has a membership

interest in the latter and that interest satisfies two tests; a non-

portfolio test and principal assets test. The non-portfolio test is

satisfied if the direct participation interest held by the holding

entity is ten per cent or more. The principal assets test requires

that more than fifty per cent of the value of the assets held are

attributable to Australian real property, whether held directly or

indirectly. Australian law contains legislation in the nature of a

look-through provision under which the holding of an indirect real

property interest implicates the capital gains tax regime. Canadian

legislation contains provisions for the imposition of capital gains

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 113 wp1325.10

tax on the disposition of taxable Canadian property. Look-through

provisions have been enacted to bring within the ambit of the

taxing power situations involving the holding of a specified

proportion of assets or shares in real property or resource property.

Legislation in the U.S. also provides rules with respect to the

investment of a foreign person in real property and provides that

the gain on the disposition of a United State Real Property Interest

(USRPI) would be subject to tax. Such an interest is defined as an

interest in real property located in the U.S. and any interest in a

domestic corporation which is a real property holding corporation.

In the case of income in the form of capital gains on the disposal of

assets situated within a territory, some countries do not tax non-

residents on such gains at all. This is the position in the United

Kingdom which does not tax non-residents on capital gains, even

gains on the sale of U.K. land.

98. The U.N. Manual for the Negotiation of Bilateral Tax

Treaties between Developed and Developing Countries

describes the principles of international taxation underlying tax

treaties:

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 114 wp1325.10

"1. INTERNATIONAL DOUBLE TAXATION

A. Concepts and issues

-1. The jurisdiction to impose income tax is based either on the relationship of the income (tax object) to the taxing state (commonly known as the source or situs principle) or the relationship of the taxpayer (tax

subject) to the taxing state based on residence or nationality. Under the source principle, a State's claim to tax income is based on the State's relationship to that income. ...

-2. ...

-3. Under the residence principle, a State's claim to tax income is based on its relationship to the person

deriving that income. For example, a State would invoke the residence principle to tax wages earned by a resident of that State without reference to the place where the wages were earned. In general, a State invokes the

residence principle to impose tax on the worldwide income of its residents."

99. An illustration of the operation of a provision in a tax

treaty is contained in the Capital Gains Article of the 2008 version

of the OECD Model which is as follows :

"Article 13

CAPITAL GAINS

-1. Gains derived by a resident of a Contracting State from the alienation of immovable property referred to in Article 6 and situated in the other Contracting State

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 115 wp1325.10

may be taxed in that other State.

-2. Gains from the alienation of movable property forming part of the business property of a permanent

establishment which an enterprise of a Contracting State has in the other Contracting State, including such gains from the alienation of such a permanent establishment (alone or with the whole enterprise), may be taxed in

that other State.

-3. Gains from the alienation of ships or aircraft operated in international traffic, boats engaged in inland

waterways transports or movable property pertaining to the operation of such ships, aircraft or boats, shall be

taxable only in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated.

-4. Gains derived by a resident of a Contracting State from the alienation of shares deriving more than 50 per cent of their value directly or indirectly from immovable property situated in the other Contracting

State may be taxed in that other State.

-5. Gains from the alienation of any property, other than that referred to in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, shall be taxable only in the Contracting State of which

the alienator is a resident."

The OECD Model is illustrative of the manner in which a value

driven deeming nexus may be created by legislation. Thus, capital

gains derived from an alienation of shares which derives more than

fifty per cent of their value from immovable property situated in an

another Contracting State may be taxed in that State. Hence,

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 116 wp1325.10

where the underlying asset is land situated in the source State and

where a transfer of shares in a foreign company or other entity

owning the land results in an effective transfer of ownership of the

land the source State may by legislation impose the tax.

100. Broadly speaking, source rules limit themselves to the

taxation of capital gains arising on property situated within the

taxing jurisdiction. The OECD model indicates an attempt to

initiate provisions which would look behind corporate structures

particularly where the ownership of shares represents an interest of

a certain value in real estate or immovable property situated within

the taxing jurisdiction. We must, however, hasten to add that in

this case, the Court is essentially required to construe the

provisions of our own taxing legislation.

The FIPB Process

101. On 12 January 2005, the Government of India, in the

Ministry of Commerce and Industry, issued Press-note 1. The Press-

note provided that new proposals for foreign investment/technical

collaboration would henceforth be allowed under the 'automatic

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 117 wp1325.10

route', subject to sectoral policies, in accordance with the

guidelines formulated therein. The Press note contained

guidelines governing the approval of foreign/technical

collaborations under the automatic route with previous

ventures/tie ups in India. Under the Press note, the prior approval

of the Government to new proposals for foreign

investment/technical collaboration would be required only where a

foreign investor had an existing joint venture or a technology

transfer/trade mark agreement in the same field.

102. On 20 February 2007 VIH BV submitted an application to

FIPB under Press Note 1 (2005 series) in respect of the proposed

acquisition of an indirect interest in HEL from HTIL. The

application stated that (i) In December 2005 VIH BV had acquired

a 5.61 % equity stake in Bharti Airtel; (ii) VIH BV proposed to

acquire the entire issued share capital of CGP Investments

(Holdings) Limited, a company incorporated in the Cayman

Islands; (iii) CGP owned through its subsidiaries an aggregate of

42.34% of the issued share capital of HEL and had indirect

interest in 9.62% of HEL's issued share capital; (iv) The

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 118 wp1325.10

acquisition of the entire share capital in CGP from HTIL was an

overseas transaction under which there was a transfer of shares of

an overseas company from one non-resident to another. This

acquisition according to VIH BV did not fall within the jurisdiction

of the FIPB though the overseas transaction would require to be

noted by the FIPB. As a result of the transaction VIH - BV would

acquire an indirect controlling interest of 51.96% in HEL. Since

Bharati Airtel and HEL were engaged in activities in the same field

as stated in the provisions of Press Note 1 the approval of the

Government was necessitated. VIH BV stated that the overseas

transaction did not require the approval of FIPB, being a transfer of

shares of an overseas company from one non-resident to another.

The application was, however, submitted in order to enable the

FIPB to note the revised position following the completion of the

overseas transaction. In addition, since as a result of the overseas

transaction VIH - BV would acquire an indirect interest in HEL, a

company competing in the same field with Bharti Airtel the

provisions of Press Note 1 were attracted. On 9 February 2007

Bharti Airtel had furnished its consent to the indirect acquisition of

shares by VIH BV in HEL. FIPB was requested to take note of the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:47 ::: VBC 119 wp1325.10

overseas transaction and additionally to give its approval under

Press Note 1.

103. Upon receipt of the application, the Government of India

in the FIPB unit of the Ministry of Finance addressed a letter on 28

February 2007 to HEL seeking details of the direct and indirect

foreign holding in HEL and details of Indian companies together

with their stake in HEL. The Government also sought a

clarification as to which entity had the beneficial ownership of

stakes held in HEL by the entities of Shri Asim Ghosh and Shri

Analjit Singh viz. Indusind Telecom Network Private Limited and

Telecom Investments India Private Limited together with their

subsidiaries. Asim Ghosh clarified by his letter dated 2 March 2007

to HEL, in response to FIPB's letter, that through his 100% Indian

companies he held 23.97 % equity in a joint venture company, TII

Private Limited which in turn held 19.54% of HEL. Accordingly his

indirect equity or beneficial interest in HEL worked out to 4.68%.

Asim Ghosh clarified that his interest in these companies was

entirely owned by him and that he had received credit support for

his investment which had been disclosed publicly. A similar

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 120 wp1325.10

clarification was issued by Analjit Singh on 5 March 2007 to FIPB.

On 6 March 2007 HEL responded with a clarification to the

Government of India.

104. On 6 March 2007, Essar Teleholdings Limited lodged an

objection with the FIPB to the application for approval moved by

VIH BV under Press Note 1. The ground of objection was that the

proposed transaction sought to link two direct competitors. Essar

claimed that with a shareholding in HEL of more than 10% it was a

stakeholder and that its interest would be jeopardized by the

proposed transaction since both HEL and Bharti Airtel are

competitors.

105. On 14 March 2007 the FIPB sought a clarification from

HEL. The letter stated that HTIL in its filings before the Securities

and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the U.S. in March 2006 had

stated that the HTIL group will continue to hold a 42.34% interest

in HEL and an additional indirect interest through joint venture

companies, being non-wholly owned subsidiaries of HTIL which

held an aggregate of 19.54%. Hence, the combined holding of the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 121 wp1325.10

HTIL group would be 61.88%. However, on 6 March 2007 a

communication had been sent to FIPB in which the direct and

indirect interest of HTIL was stated to be 51.96%. A clarification

was sought on the discrepancy. HEL furnished a clarification on 14

March 2007 stating that as a company listed on the New York

Stock Exchange HTIL's filings were made in accordance with the

requirements of the SEC. Under U.S. GAPP requirements, HTIL

had to consolidate the assets and liabilities of companies even

though they were not owned or controlled by HTIL in accordance

with U.S. accounting standards. This accounting consolidation was

required even though these companies were not legally

subsidiaries. This was not the case under Indian GAAP

requirements under which the aggregate of the direct and indirect

FDI held by HTIL was 51.96%. The difference between 61.88%

disclosed to the SEC in the U.S. and 51.96% reported in India was

stated to be due to different accounting standards applied in the

two jurisdictions. HEL furnished a clarification to the FIPB on 14

March 2007. VIH - BV in a letter addressed to the FIPB on 14

March 2007 clarified that in addition to obtaining a controlling

interest of 52% in HEL as a result of the acquisition of the CGP

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 122 wp1325.10

share, HEL's existing Indian partners Asim Ghosh and Analjit

Singh and IDFC, who between them held 15% interest in HEL had

agreed to retain their shareholding. VIH BV would be entitled

subsequently, directly and indirectly, to acquire shares in TII and

Omega if permitted under Indian regulatory requirements

including the maximum limitation prescribed on foreign direct

investment in the telecommunications sector. If and when VIH BV

was able to acquire these shares, it would own a 67% interest in

HEL.

106. On 19 March 2007 FIPB sought a clarification from VIH

BV of the circumstances in which it had agreed to pay a

consideration of US $ 11.08 billion for acquiring 67% of HEL when

the actual acquisition was only of 51.96% as claimed in the

application filed before the FIPB. In its response dated 19 March

2007 VIH BV stated that it had agreed to acquire from HTIL for US

$ 11.08 billion, interest in HEL which included a 52% equity

shareholding. This price included a control premium, use and

rights to the Hutch Brand in India, a non-compete agreement, loan

obligations and an entitlement to acquire subject to Indian foreign

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 123 wp1325.10

investment rules a further 15% indirect interest in HEL. These

elements together equated to about 67% of the equity capital. On

22 March 2007 FIPB sought a break up of the valuation attached

to each of the items mentioned by VIH BV in its letter together with

supporting documents and other filings. VIH BV in its letter dated

27 March 2007 stated that in arriving at the consideration it had

not individually placed a price on each of the components but its

approach was to look at the package of assets, liabilities and other

intangible factors represented by the ownership of CGP and to

assess the total value.

107. FIPB by its letter dated 7 May 2007 communicated its

approval to allow the transaction by which VIH BV "is acquiring or

has acquired" effective shareholding of 51.96 % in HEL. The

conditions subject to which the approval was granted was that VIH

BV shall indicate and ensure that its shareholding taken along with

the shareholders of three other entities will be compliant with Press

Note 3 of 2007 dated 19 April 2007 by which the sectoral cap of

foreign direct investment in the telecom sector was fixed at 74%.

The approval was also subject to the condition that the foreign

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 124 wp1325.10

collaborator had no existing joint venture or technology transfer /

trademark agreement in the same field for which approval is

granted. Now VIH BV had moved the FIPB initially to take note of

its proposed overseas transaction as a result of which, through the

acquisition of the issued share capital of CGP from HTIL, VIH BV

would acquire a 51.96% controlling interest indirectly in HEL. In

addition, FIPB approval was sought in terms of Press Note 1 in

view of the fact that it held a 5.61 % stake in Bharati Airtel which

was a competitor in the same sector. FIPB after an enquiry

accorded its permission in terms of Press Note 3 subject to

compliance of the sectoral cap of 74%. Counsel for VIH BV has

stated before the Court that if and when the put agreements are

enforced, there would be an acquisition of the shares of an Indian

company upon which capital gains would be liable to be taxed

under Indian tax legislation.

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act 1961

108. Section 195 postulates that any person responsible for

paying to a non-resident, not being a foreign company, or to a

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 125 wp1325.10

foreign company any interest or any other sum chargeable under

the provisions of the Act ( not being income chargeable under the

head 'salaries') shall, at the time of credit of such income to the

account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or

by the issue of a cheque or by draft or by any other mode

whichever is earlier, deduct income tax thereon at the rates in

force. Under sub section (2), where a person responsible for

paying any such sum chargeable under the Act to a non-resident

considers that the whole of such sum would not be income

chargeable in the case of the recipient, he may make an application

to the Assessing Officer to determine the appropriate proportion of

such sum so chargeable. Upon a determination by the Assessing

Officer tax is liable to be deducted only on that proportion of the

sum which is so chargeable. Under sub section (3) any person

entitled to receive interest or other sum on which income tax has to

be deducted under sub section (1) may make an application in the

prescribed form to the Assessing Officer for a certificate authorizing

him to receive the sum without deduction of tax. Where a

certificate is granted every person responsible for paying such

interest or sum to the holder of the certificate shall so long as the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 126 wp1325.10

certificate is in force make payment without deducting tax thereon.

109. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the

Petitioner is that the expression "any person" must mean a person

subject to Indian law. A nexus with Indian law would exist either

when a person is a resident or if the transaction was consummated

in India or where the payment is made from and out of India. It

has been urged that though textually the expression "person" is

wider than the expression "resident", a contextual interpretation

must be adopted in order to avoid absurdity. While paying out to a

non-resident and before payment is made, tax has to be deducted.

A positive obligation is cast on a payment out of the country

because the beneficiary is beyond the reach of the Indian law. The

person on whom a positive obligation is cast is subject to Indian

law. Hence, it was urged that the expression "any person" must

mean a person who has a nexus with India. VIH BV, it has been

urged has no such nexus. It is not a resident, it has no office in

India and has no sum chargeable in India. Hence, it was urged on

behalf of the Petitioner that two tests must be satisfied before

Section 195 can be invoked, the first of which is express and the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 127 wp1325.10

second implicit: (i) The sum must be chargeable under the Act. If

there is a dispute on quantum, an obligation still arises, but if it is

not chargeable at all then the Section does not apply and this

would raise a jurisdictional issue; (ii) The person is one on whom

the Revenue can legitimately, consistent with the principles of the

conflict of laws cast an obligation.

110.

Now while evaluating the submission it would be

necessary to elucidate the essential requirements of sub section (1)

of Section 195. The first requirement is that there is a person

responsible for paying to a non-resident any interest or any other

sum. Responsibility postulates a legally enforceable obligation to

pay a non resident. An obligation may arise under a contract or

otherwise. The second requirement is that the interest or the other

sum must be chargeable under the provisions of the Act other than

under the head of 'salaries'. Chargeability under the Act is

mandated before the obligation to deduct arises. If these

requirements are met, income tax thereon has to be deducted at

the rates in force "at the time of credit of such income to the

account of the payee" or at the time of payment, whichever is

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 128 wp1325.10

earlier.

111. In Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited V/s.

Commissioner of Income Tax40, the State Electricity Board made

certain payments to a non-resident against the purchase of

machinery and equipment and against work executed by the non-

resident in India of erecting and commissioning the machinery and

equipment. The question was whether for these payments, the

Board was under an obligation to deduct tax at source under

Section 195. The question before the High Court was whether the

Board was liable to deduct income tax under Section 195 in respect

of payments made to the non-resident and if so whether the tax

deductible was liable to be determined on the gross sum paid to the

non-resident. On behalf of the assessee, it was contended before

the Supreme Court that when the payment made to a non-resident

did not entirely comprise of income, but was a trading receipt, no

question of deducting income tax at source would arise. In other

words, it was urged that tax could be deducted at source when the

entire sum paid represented total income chargeable under Section

40 (1999) 239 ITR 587 (S.C.)

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 129 wp1325.10

5. The Supreme Court held that sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 of Sections

195 and 197 left no doubt about the position that the expression

"any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act" would

mean a sum on which income-tax is leviable. If the sum was

income or if income was "hidden or otherwise embedded" therein,

tax was required to be deducted. The Scheme of tax deduction at

source was held to apply not only to the amount paid, which

wholly bears an income character, such as salaries, dividends and

interest on securities but also to gross sums, the whole of which

may not be income or profit of the recipients, such as payments

to contractors. The Supreme Court held that Section 195(1) is a

provision for a tentative deduction of income-tax subject to

regular assessment and the rights of parties are not adversely

affected by a deduction of income tax. The Supreme Court

rejected the contention of the assessee that the expression "any

other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act" would not

include cases where any sum payable to the non-resident is a

trading receipt which may or may not include pure income.

However, the obligation of the assessee to deduct tax under Section

195 is limited only to the appropriate portion of income chargeable

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 130 wp1325.10

under the Act.

112. In Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation V/s. Commissioner

of Income Tax41, the issue which arose for determination before

the Supreme Court was whether the assessee was bound to deduct

TDS under Section 195(1) in respect of usance interest paid for the

purchase of a vessel for ship breaking. The assessee contended that

usance interest had the character of the purchase price and hence

TDS was not deductible. The Supreme Court held that it was not

required to examine this question in the light of the judgment of

the Gujarat High Court since after the judgment in the Appeal was

delivered, Explanation 2 was added by an amendment to Section

10(15)(iv)(c) to declare that usance interest payable outside India

by an undertaking engaged in the business of ship breaking in

respect of the purchase of a ship from outside India would be

deemed to be interest payable on a debt incurred in a foreign

country in respect of the purchase outside India. On reading

Explanation 2, it was clear that usance interest is exempt from the

payment of income-tax, if paid in respect of ship breaking activity.

41 (2009) 314 ITR 309 (S.C.)

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 131 wp1325.10

The Supreme Court held that "the assessee was not bound to

deduct tax at source once Explanation 2 to Section 10(15)(iv)(c)

stood inserted as TDS arises only if the tax is assessable in

India". Since tax was not assessable in India, there was no

question of TDS being deducted by the assessee.

113. In a subsequent decision in Commissioner of Income

Tax V/s. Eli Lilly and Company (India) Private Limited42, the

assessee had seconded expatriates to a joint venture in India. The

assessee was a joint venture company and the appointment of the

expatriates was routed through a Board comprising of the Indian

partner. Only a part of the aggregate remuneration was paid in

India by the tax deductor assessee. No work was performed by the

employees for the foreign company. The Assessing Officer found

that the total remuneration paid was only on account of services

rendered in India and, therefore, in terms of Section 9(1)(ii) the

income derived by the expatriates was taxable in India.

Accordingly, the tax deductor assessee was asked to explain why it

should not be declared as an assessee in default under Section

42 (1009) 15 SCC 1

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 132 wp1325.10

201(1) as it had failed to deduct tax at source on the aggregate

salary received by the expatriates. The defense was that the joint

venture company deducted tax at source under Section 192(1) in

respect of the salary paid to the expatriates in India and that no tax

stood deducted in respect of the home salary paid by the foreign

company to the expatriates outside India, dehors the contract of

employment in India. Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia (as the learned

Chief Justice then was) noted that unlike other sections of Chapter

XVII-B regulating tax deducted at source, Section 192 requires a

deduction on estimated income chargeable under the head salary

and at the time of payment of salary. The Supreme Court held that

"if a sum that is to be paid to the non-resident is chargeable to tax,

tax is required to be deducted". The question which fell for

consideration was whether the TDS provisions of Chapter XVII-B

which were in the nature of machinery provisions would apply to

payments made abroad by a foreign company which had seconded

expatriate employees for rendering services in India to the tax

deductor assessee. On the question of extraterritoriality, the

Supreme Court observed as follows :

"65. On the question of extraterritorial

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 133 wp1325.10

operation of the 1961 Act the general concept as to the scope of income tax is that, given a sufficient territorial

connection or nexus between the person sought to be charged and the country seeking to tax him, income tax

may extend to that person in respect of his foreign income. The connection can be based on the residence of the person or business connection within the territory of the taxing State; and the situation within

the State of the money or property from which the taxable income is derived (see The Law and Practice of Income Tax by Kanga and Palkhivala, 7th Edn. At p.

10)".

The Supreme Court held, following the decision of the Federal

Court in A.H. Wadia V/s. CIT, (1949) 17 ITR 63 (FC), that if the

payments of home salary abroad by the foreign company to the

expatriate has any connection or nexus with his rendition of service

in India then such payment would constitute income which is

deemed to accrue or arise to the recipient in India as salary earned

in India in terms of Section 9(1)(ii). Section 9, held the Supreme

Court, was a typical example of a combination of a machinery

provision which also provides for chargeability. The Court held

that the 1961 Act has extraterritorial operations in respect of

subject-matters and subjects which is permissible under Article 245

of the Constitution and the provisions are enforceable within the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 134 wp1325.10

area where the Act extends through the machinery provided under

it. If a particular income falls outside Section 4(1), the Supreme

Court held that TDS provisions would not set in. The conclusion

which was arrived at by the Supreme Court was as follows :

"88 .. Firstly, it cannot be stated as a broad proposition that the TDS provisions which are in the nature of machinery provisions to enable collection and recovery of tax are independent of the charging

provisions which determine the assessability in the hands of the assessee employee. Secondly, whether the

home salary payment made by the foreign company in foreign currency abroad can be held to be "deemed to accrue or arise in India" would depend upon the in-

depth examination of the facts in each case. If the home salary / special allowance payment made by the foreign company abroad is for rendition of services in India and if as in the present case of M/s.Eli Lilly & Co.

(India) (P) Ltd. no work was found to have been performed for M/s.Eli Lilly Inc., Netherlands then such

payment would certainly come under Section 192(1) read with Section 9(1)(ii)".

On facts, it was held that no work had been performed for the

foreign company by the four expatriates and the entire

remuneration was paid only for services rendered in India. In such

a case, the tax deductor assessee was statutorily obliged to deduct

tax under Section 192(1).

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 135 wp1325.10

114. In Kanchanganga Sea Foods Ltd. vs. C.I.T.43 the

Appellant which was a company incorporated in India, had a

permit to fish in the exclusive economic zone of India and was

engaged in the sale and export of sea food. Under an agreement

with a non-resident company incorporated in Hong Kong, the

Appellant obtained trawlers on charter hire, each on an annual

payment of US $ 600,000. The Appellant was to receive a

stipulated sum or 15% of the gross value of the catch, whichever

was more. The charter fee was payable from the earnings from the

sale of fish and for that purpose, 85% of the gross earnings were to

be paid to the non-resident. The vessels were delivered at Chennai

Port, from where the voyage commenced and concluded. The catch

was brought from the high seas to Chennai where it was surveyed.

The assessee carried the catch to the destination after clearance at

Chennai. The Supreme Court confirmed the findings arrived at by

the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner, Tribunal and the High

Court that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source and was

in default of its obligation to do so. The Supreme Court held that

the chartered vessels together with the entire catch were brought to

43 2010 (6) SCALE 442.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 136 wp1325.10

an Indian Port, where the catch was certified for consumption,

valued and it was after Customs and Port clearances that the non-

resident received 85% of the catch. It was after the catch was

apportioned at Chennai, that the non-resident obtained control

over its share of 85%. The Supreme Court held that the question as

to whether income had arisen or accrued or whether it would be

deemed to have arisen or accrued in India would have to be

determined in the light of the terms of the contract. The receipt of

85% of the catch being in India, the Supreme Court observed that

this being the first receipt in the eye of law would be chargeable to

tax in India. The income earned by the non-resident was in

substance, a receipt for value in India and was held to be

chargeable to tax under Section 5(2). The Supreme Court

distinguished its earlier judgments in C.I.T. vs. Toshoku Ltd.44

and in Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Director

of Income Tax45. In Toshoku a non-resident assessee had acted

as selling agent outside India and did not carry on business

operations in the taxable territory. The commission received by the

non-resident for service rendered outside India was held not to

44 (1980) 125 ITR 525.

45 (2007) 288 ITR 408.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 137 wp1325.10

have accrued or arisen in India and the mere making of a book

entry by the statutory agent was held not to amount to a receipt in

India. Ishikawajima, the Supreme Court noted, was one where

the entire transaction had been completed on high seas and the

profits of sale did not arise in India. In contrast, in the case at

hand, the Supreme Court held that the entire catch of fish was

brought to an Indian Port and after valuation was complete, the

charter fee in the form of 85% of the catch was paid to and

received by the non-resident in India. Section 195 was therefore

attracted.

UNITED KINGDOM : Extra territoriality and the obligation to

deduct tax.

115. In 1879, the Court of Appeal held that it was a governing

principle that all English Legislation is primarily territorial (Ex

parte BLAIN In Re Sawers)46. Brett, L.J. held that the legislation of

any country binds its own subjects and the subjects of other

countries who for the time bring themselves within the allegiance

of the legislating power. James, L.J. spoke thus :-

46 (1879) XII Chancery Division 522 at 528

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 138 wp1325.10

"It appears to me that the whole question is governed by the broad, general, universal principle that English

legislation, unless the contrary is expressly enacted or so plainly implied as to make it the duty of an English

Court to give effect to an English statute, is applicable only to English subjects or to foreigners who by coming into this country, whether for a long or a short time, have made themselves during that time subject to

English jurisdiction. ... But, if a foreigner remains abroad, if he has never come into this country at all, it seems to me impossible to imagine that the English Legislature could have ever intended to make

such a man subject to particular English legislation."

116.

In Clark (Inspector of Taxes) V/s. Oceanic Contractors

Inc.47, the House of Lords dealt with a case where a non-resident

overseas company which was engaged in laying of pipes and

platform construction in the North Sea employed 400 workers on

its barges and other vessels. The company carried on operations

throughout the world, among them in the United Kingdom sector

of the North Sea, which were designated areas under the

Continental Shelf Act 1964. The Company deducted PAYE tax in

respect of its employees, who were employed at establishments in

United Kingdom. But those employed in the United Kingdom

sector of the North Sea were paid in United States Dollars free of

tax. The employees were liable to tax under Schedule E in respect 47 (1983) 1 All ER 133

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 139 wp1325.10

of their earnings in the U.K. Sector of the North Sea. The Crown

claimed that the company was required by Section 204 of the

Income and Corporation Tax of 1970 to deduct PAYE tax payable

under Schedule E from wages and salaries paid to the employees,

who worked in the U.K. sector of the North Sea. The Court of

Appeal had held that although Section 204 was general, Parliament

could not have intended to cast on a foreigner who was not

resident of the United Kingdom the role of tax collector for the

Revenue and Section 204 was to be presumed not to have

extraterritorial effect. The House of Lords allowed the Appeal and

reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal. Lord Scarman

observed that the liability to tax under the Act of 1970 depends on

the location of the source from which the taxable income is derived

or the residence of the person whose income is to be taxed. If

either the source of income or the residence of the owner of the

income is in the United Kingdom, the income is liable to tax.

Section 204 imposes the PAYE system of tax collection in respect of

any income assessable under Schedule E and contains no

extraterritorial limitation on the extent of the obligation which it

imposes. The only limitations were that : (i) Residence is not a

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 140 wp1325.10

necessary condition of tax liability if there be otherwise a sufficient

connection between the source of the income, profit or gain and

the United Kingdom; and (ii) Section 204, silent itself as to the

territorial extent of the obligation it imposes, is a machinery section

for the collection of Schedule E tax. Lord Scarman, while adverting

to the decision in Ex parte BLAIN (supra) observed thus :

"Put into the language of today, the general principle being there stated is simply that, unless the contrary is

expressly enacted or so plainly implied that the courts must give effect to it, United Kingdom legislation is applicable only to British subjects or to foreigners who by coming to the United Kingdom, whether for a short

or long time, have made themselves subject to British jurisdiction. Two points would seem to be clear : first, that the principle is a rule of construction only and, second, that it contemplates mere presence within

the jurisdiction as sufficient to attract the application of British legislation. Certainly there is no general principle that the legislation of the

United Kingdom is applicable only to British subjects or persons resident here. Merely to state such a proposition is to manifest its absurdity. Presence, not residence, is the test".

(emphasis supplied).

117. The Law Lord observed that the same time, the Income-

tax Acts impose their own territorial limits, since Parliament

recognizes the almost universally accepted principle that fiscal

legislation is not enforceable outside the limits of the territorial

sovereignty of the kingdom. Fiscal legislation is drafted in the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 141 wp1325.10

knowledge that it is the practice of nations not to enforce fiscal

legislation of other nations. But, in the absence of any clear

indications to the contrary, it does not necessarily follow that

Parliament has in its fiscal legislation intended any territorial

limitation other than that imposed by such unenforceability.

Having said this, Lord Scarman observed that the case was

concerned with the territorial limitation to be implied into a

Section which establishes a method of tax collection. The method

is to require the person paying the income to deduct it from his

payments and account for it to the Revenue. The only critical

factor, so far as collection is concerned, is whether in the

circumstances it can be made effective. The test which was applied

by the House of Lords was that of a trading presence in the United

Kingdom. A trading presence in the United Kingdom was held to

suffice in order to attract the liability to deduct tax. On facts, it

was held that the trading presence was made out. For the purposes

of Corporation Tax, Oceanic carried on a trade in the United

Kingdom which included its operations in the United Kingdom

sector of the North Sea. For the purposes of this trade it employed

a workforce in that sector, whose earnings were assessable to

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 142 wp1325.10

British income tax. Finally, Oceanic had an address for service in

the United Kingdom. For these reasons, Lord Scarman concluded

that Oceanic by its trading operations within the United Kingdom

and in the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea had subjected

itself to the liability to deduct tax in respect of those emoluments of

its employees which were chargeable to British income tax.

118.

In a subsequent decision in Agassi V/s. Robinson

(Inspector of Taxes)48, the House of Lords revisited its earlier

decision in Oceanic. Agassi, a well-known professional tennis

player was neither resident nor domiciled in the United Kingdom

and in the tax year relevant to the Appeal, he had participated in a

tennis tournament in that country, including Wimbledon. Agassi

held and controlled a company, whose business included entering

into contracts with manufacturers of sports clothing and equipment

which was sponsored or advertised by Agassi. Two contracts were

entered into with Nike Inc and Head Sport AG, pursuant to which

the company received payments during the taxation year. Sections

555 and 556 of the 1988 Act provided that where a person who is

48 (2006) 1 W.L.R. 1380

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 143 wp1325.10

an entertainer or a sportsman of a prescribed description performs

an activity of a prescribed description in the United Kingdom, the

Chapter would apply if he is non-resident in the United Kingdom in

the year of assessment in which the relevant activity is performed.

Whenever a payment was made to whatever person which had a

connection of a prescribed kind with the relevant activity, the

person making payment was liable to deduct a sum representing

income-tax. On behalf of Agassi, it was contended that Nike and

Head were foreign companies with no trading presence in the

United Kingdom and it was, therefore, to be presumed that

Parliament did not intend them to be caught by the tax collection

provisions. Lord Scott, while rejecting the submission, observed

thus :

"... The whole point of sections 555 to 558 is to subject foreign entertainers or sportsmen to a charge to tax on profits on gains obtained in connection with their commercial activities in the United Kingdom. Payments to foreign companies controlled by them are to be treated as payments to them. The infrequent or

sporadic nature of their commercial activities and presence in the United Kingdom and the difficulty of collecting from them the section 556 tax on their profits and gains from those activities was one of the reasons why the new collection regime was introduced under the 1988 Act. To read into the statutory provisions a limitation preventing the collection regime from applying where the payer is a foreign entity with no UK presence and thereby relieving the foreign entertainer / sportsman from the charge to tax cannot, in my

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 144 wp1325.10

opinion, possibly be justified on the basis of a presumed legislative intention". (emphasis supplied).

119. The decisions in the United Kingdom indicate the

following position :

-(i) Liability to tax depends on the location of the source

from which taxable income is derived or the residence of the

person whose income is to be taxed. If either the source of income

or the residence of the owner of the income is in the United

Kingdom, the income is liable to tax;

-(ii) If there exists a sufficient connection between the

source of the income, profit or gain and the United Kingdom,

residence is not a necessary condition of tax liability;

-(iii) The broad general principle is that unless the

contrary is expressly enacted or plainly implied, United Kingdom

legislation applies to British subjects or to foreigners who by

coming to United Kingdom, whether for a short or long period of

time, have made themselves subject to British jurisdiction;

-(iv) The principle set out in (iii) above is only a rule of

construction and contemplates that a mere presence within the

jurisdiction would be sufficient to attract the application of British

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 145 wp1325.10

legislation;

-(v) Fiscal legislation is drafted in the knowledge that it

is a practise of nations not to enforce fiscal legislation of other

nations but it does not necessarily follow that Parliament intended

any territorial limitation other than that imposed by such

unenforceability;

-(vi) Where an obligation for the deduction of tax by a

payer is created by a statutory provision, such a provision is in the

nature of a machinery section for the collection of tax. The

obligation to deduct tax arises when the payment is made and it

arises only in respect of the income assessable under the charging

provision;

(vii) The critical factor in so far as collection is concerned

is whether in the circumstances it can be made effective. A trading

presence in the United Kingdom will suffice.

In concluding this portion of the judgment, the principles

which should govern the interpretation of Section 195 of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 can be formulated as follows :

-(i) Section 195(1) provides for a tentative deduction

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 146 wp1325.10

of income-tax, subject to a regular assessment;

-(ii) Section 195 postulates two requirements: Firstly,

there is a person responsible for paying to a non resident, any

interest or other sum. Secondly, the interest or other sum must be

chargeable under the provisions of the Act, other than under the

head of salaries;

-(iii) The obligation to deduct tax arises where the sum

payable to a non-resident is chargeable to tax under the provisions

of the Act. For the obligation to deduct to arise, the entire sum

payable need not be income chargeable under the Act. If the sum

payable to a non-resident represents income or if income is hidden

or otherwise embedded in it, tax is required to be deducted on the

sum. The obligation of the assessee in that event is to deduct tax

under Section 195 limited to the appropriate portion of income

chargeable under the Act;

-(iv) The liability to deduct tax arises if the tax is

assessable in India. If the tax is not assessable in India, there is no

question of TDS being deducted by an assessee;

-(v) The general principle of fiscal legislation is that

given a sufficient territorial connection or nexus between the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 147 wp1325.10

person sought to be charged and the country seeking to tax him,

income tax may extend to that person. The connection can be

based on the residence of the person or a business connection

within the territory of a taxing State or a situation within the State

of the money or property from which the taxable income is derived;

-(vi) TDS provisions which are in the nature of

machinery provisions constitute an integrated Code under the Act

of 1961 together with charging provisions. Hence, those

provisions are not independent of the charging provisions which

determine assessability to tax;

-(vii) Whether a payment made by a foreign company in

foreign currency abroad can be deemed to accrue or arise in India,

would depend upon an examination of the facts and circumstances

of each case. In Eli Lily the payment made abroad by the foreign

company was for the rendition of service in India and no work was

found to have been performed for the foreign company. Such a

payment was held to fall within the ambit of Section 192(1) read

with Section 9(1)(ii). The Indian company was liable to deduct

tax on the aggregate salary received by the expatriates including

payments made by the foreign company;

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 148 wp1325.10

-(viii) Parliament, while imposing a liability to deduct

tax has designedly imposed it on a person responsible for paying

interest or any other sum to a non resident. Parliament has not

restricted the obligation to deduct tax on a resident and the Court

will not imply a restriction not imposed by legislation. Section 195

embodies a machinery that would render tax collection effective

and must be construed to effectuate the charge of tax. There is no

limitation of extra territoriality involved though Parliament is

cognisant of the fact that the provisions of the law can be enforced

within the territory to which the Act extends.

Analysing the facts:

120. The case of of the Petitioner is that the transaction was

only in respect of one share of CGP in Cayman Islands and this

being a capital asset situated outside India neither had any income

accrued or arisen in India, nor would any income be deemed to

have accrued or arisen in India. On the other hand, the case of the

Revenue is that the subject matter of the transaction on a true

construction of the Sale and Purchase agreement of 11 February

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 149 wp1325.10

2007 and other transaction documents is a composite transaction

involving a transfer of rights in HEL by HTIL resulting in an accrual

or deemed accrual of income for HTIL from a source of income in

India or from an asset in India or through the transfer of a capital

asset situated in India.

How HTIL and VIH BV construed the transaction:

121.

Before we analyse the transaction documents, it would

be appropriate to consider how HTIL itself construed the

transaction. What was the business understanding of the parties to

the transaction? HTIL's interim report for 2007 contains the

operating results for the six months which ended on 30 June 2007.

Under the head "India - Discontinued Operations" the

Chairman's statement records that until 8 May 2007 India had

contributed H.K.$ 70,502 million to the profits for the period which

was made up of H.K$ 1,159 million from operating activities and

H.K.$ 69,343 million being "a one-off gain on disposal". The

statement records that the group had sold its entire interests in

CGP for US $ 11.1 billion (HK $ 86.6 billion) which resulted in a

net cash inflow of H.K.$ 84.9 billion. In addition, a debt of US $ 2

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 150 wp1325.10

billion was transferred as part of the transaction. As a result, the

Group transitioned from having a net debt of H.K.$ 37,369 million

as of 31 December 2006 to a net cash balance of H.K.$ 26,624

million as at 30 June 2007. The following extract from the report,

indicates how HTIL viewed the transaction:

"8. PROFIT FROM DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS

On 11 February 2007, the company entered into an agreement to sell its entire interests in CGP, a company

which held all of the company's direct and indirect equity and loan interests in its Indian mobile telecommunications operation, comprising Hutchison

Essar Limited (now known as "Vodafone Essar Limited') ("Hutchison Essar") and its subsidiaries to Vodafone International Holdings B.V. ("Vodafone"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Vodafone Group Plc, for a cash

consideration of approximately US$ 11.1 billion (approximately HK$ 86.6 billion)(the "Transaction").

Accordingly, the results of the Group's Indian mobile telecommunications operations were presented as discontinued operations in accordance with HKFRS 5

"Non-current assets held for sale and discontinued operations". The presentation of comparative information in respect of the six months ended 30 June 2006 which was previously reported in the 2006 interim accounts has been amended to conform with the

requirements of HKFRS 5.

Subsequently, Essar Teleholdings Limited ("ETH"), a shareholder of Hutchison Essar, and certain affiliates (collectively Essar") asserted various rights in relation to the Transaction and threatened to commence proceedings in the Indian courts in order to enforce those alleged rights, including by preventing completion of the

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 151 wp1325.10

Transaction. On 15 March 2007, the company entered into a conditional settlement agreement (the "settlement

agreement") with Essar pursuant to which Essar agreed to, amongst others: (i) refrain from doing anything

which would prevent, delay or inhibit completion of the Transaction; (ii) use all reasonable endeavours to ensure completion of the Transaction is achieved as soon as practically possible; (iii) waive rights it has or claims to

have in respect of certain matters including those related to the Transaction; and (iv) terminate certain agreements, alleged agreements and understandings relating to the relationship connected to Hutchison Essar,

in consideration, upon completion of the transaction, the company agreed to make scheduled payments

aggregating US$415 million (approximately HK $3.2billion) before interest (the "Settlement Amount") of which US$373.5 million (approximately HK$ 2.9 billion)

was paid during the six months ended 30 June 2007.

On 8 May 2007, the company completed the Transaction, in consideration of Vodafone's agreement to waive

certain potential claims against the company under the Agreement, the company agreed to a retention from the

consideration of an amount of US$352 million (approximately HK$ 2.8 billion) (the "Retention Amount"). By a deed entered into on 8 May 2007 by

Vodafone and the company (the "Supplemental Deed"), the parties agreed the basis and the terms on which Vodafone is entitled to apply an equivalent sum of the Retention Amount to meet certain specified liabilities which Vodafone may incur in connection with the

interests effectively acquired through the Transaction during a period of up to ten years following the date of completion of the Transaction (the "Retention Period")."

The profit of discontinued operations for the period ending 8 May

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 152 wp1325.10

2007 is stated to be H.K.$ 1,159 million and the profit on the

disposal of discontinued operations H.K.$ 69,343 making a total of

H.K.$ 70,502. During the period of six months ending 30 June

2007, HTIL stated that it had declared a special cash dividend ("the

transaction special dividend") of H.K.$ 6.75 per share or

approximately H.K.$ 32,234 million in aggregate. The transaction

Special Dividend was paid out of the proceeds from the transaction.

122. HTIL in its Annual Report for 2007 stated that "in the

first half we announced .. the completion of the sale of CGP

Investments (Holdings) Limited which held through various

subsidiaries all our interests in India". The report refers to the

transaction of 11 February 2007 and reports "the results pertaining

to the India mobile telecommunications operations .. presented as

discontinued operations" in accordance with the Hong Kong

Financial Reporting Standard (HKFRS). HKFRS adopts the

classification "held for sale" and introduced a concept of the

"disposal group", being a group of assets to be disposed of by sale or

otherwise, together as a group in a single transaction and liabilities

directly associated with those assets that would be transferred in

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 153 wp1325.10

the transaction. The terms which are defined therein included

"discontinued operations" as a component of an entity that either

has been disposed of or is classified as held for sale and (a)

representing a separate major line of business or geographical area

of operations, (b) as part of a single coordinated plan to dispose of

a separate major line of business or geographical area of

operations, or (c) as a subsidiary acquired exclusively with a view

to resale. The expression "disposal group" includes goodwill

acquired in a business combination if the cash generating unit to

which goodwill has been allocated, in accordance with the

requirements of the reporting standard.

123. Both the interim and final reports are of significance,

because they indicate clearly the perception of HTIL. For HTIL the

transaction represented a discontinuation of its operations in

India upon which it had generated a profit of H.K.$ 70,502 million.

From the proceeds of the transaction, HTIL declared a transaction

special dividend to its shareholders. From HTIL's perspective it had

carried on "Indian mobile telecommunications operations" which

were being discontinued as a result of the transaction.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 154 wp1325.10

124. The nature of the transaction can also be considered

from the perspective of how VIH BV looked at it in the events

which led to the Sale purchase agreement dated 11 February 2007.

On 22 December 2006, Vodafone in its announcement stated that

the mobile market in India has great potential and that it was

considering the acquisition of a controlling interest in Hutch Essar

which would be consistent with its strategy of seeking selective

acquisition opportunities in developing markets. Vodafone's initial

offer dated 22 December 2006 to HTIL was a non-binding offer for

HTIL's 66.9848% share of HEL of US$ 11.055 billion based on an

enterprise value of HEL of US$ 16.5 billion. On 9 February 2007,

Vodafone submitted a revised offer of US$ 10.7078 billion. While

submitting the offer, Vodafone confirmed that it would agree in

consultation with HTIL to take into account amounts that would be

paid directly to certain existing local partners in Hutch in order to

extinguish certain obligations of HTIL to them. Vodafone also

confirmed that it had "come to arrangements" with HTIL's existing

local partners (Analjit Singh, Asim Ghosh and IDFC) to maintain

the local Indian shareholdings in accordance with Indian FDI

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 155 wp1325.10

requirements. VIH BV also expressed its willingness to offer to

Essar the same finance terms for Essar shareholdings in HEL which

were offered to HTIL. Alternatively, it expressed that it was willing

to enter into a partnership with Essar on appropriate terms.

Appendix-A to the offer set out the basis of working out the

consideration payable to HTIL for HTIL's interest in HEL. The

consideration was factored on the following basis:

ig US$m

Hutch enterprise value 18,250.0

Less: Hutch net debt (1,327.1)

Hutch equity value 16,922.9

66.9848% of Hutch equity value 11,335.8

Less: Holdco net debt (628.0)

Less: Inter-company loans (1,084.0)

Equity value of HTIL's 100% stake in CGP 9,623.8

Add: Inter-company Loans 1,084.0

Consideration to HTIL for HTIL's interest 10,707.8

The equity value of HTIL's 100% stake in CGP was computed on

the basis of HELs enterprise value of US $ 18,250 million and by

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 156 wp1325.10

computing 66.9848% of equity value. The entire value that was

ascribed to HTIL's stake in CGP was computed only on the basis of

the enterprise value of HEL.

125. Now it is in this background, that it would be necessary

to consider and analyse the documents on the record:

(i)

Term Sheet agreement 5 July 2003: On 5 July 2003,

a Term sheet agreement was entered into between HTIL, Essar

Teleholdings Ltd. and Usha Martin Telematics Ltd. The document

contemplated that the operating companies would be consolidated

by transferring all their shares to an Indian holding company,

Holdco. The holding company became HMTL and thereafter HEL.

The Term sheet postulated that a shareholders' agreement would

be entered into for Holdco which would include amongst other

things, HTIL's right to nominate the Chairman of the Board and

HTIL management rights including nominating the Chief Executive

Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Commercial Officer, Chief

Marketing Officer and Chief Technical Officer for all operations.

ETH would grant HTIL a 'right of first refusal' (ROFR) over any sale

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 157 wp1325.10

of its share in Holdco. HTIL would grant to ETH 'tag along rights'

in respect of ETH's shareholdings in Holdco. So long as HTIL

(together with its associated companies) in aggregate was the

largest single shareholder and held at least 40% of the issued share

capital of Holdco, decisions such as (i) Approval of the annual

business and operating plan including those for operating

subsidiaries; (ii) Entering into high value contracts of over US $ 20

million; (iii) Any change in the authorised or issued share capital;

and (iv) Capital calls would be treated as reserved decisions.

(ii) The Sale Purchase Agreement dated 11 February 2007

A Sale Purchase Agreement ("SPA") was entered into on

11 February 2007 between Hutchison Telecommunications

International Limited (HTIL) and Vodafone International Holdings

B.V. (VIH BV). The Agreement contains the following two recitals:

"(A) CGP is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of

the Vendor. CGP owns, directly or indirectly, companies which control the Company Interests,

(B) The Vendor has agreed to procure the sale of, and the Purchaser has agreed to purchase, the entire issued share capital of CGP on the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement. The Vendor has further agreed to procure the assignment of, and the Purchaser

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 158 wp1325.10

has agreed to accept an assignment of, the Loans on the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement and the

Loan Assignments."

'Company interests' are defined to be the aggregate interests in

66.9848 % of the issued share capital of Hutchison Essar

Limited (HEL).

Clause 2 of the SPA provides that "upon and subject to

the terms and conditions of this agreement" HTIL agreed to

procure the sale of and VIH BV agreed to purchase one ordinary

share of CGP representing the entire issued share capital of CGP

together with the rights attaching or accruing to it. HTIL also

agreed to procure the assignment of loans (defined to mean all

inter company loans owing by CGP and Array to a vendor group

company). The obligation under Clause 2 was subject to the

conditions prescribed in Clause 4.1, Sub-clause (a) of which

required "all requisite consents of the FIPB to the sale and

purchase of the share having been obtained". VIH BV was

required to use all reasonable endeavours including

communications with the FIPB to ensure satisfaction of this

condition and by the third business day following the agreement

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 159 wp1325.10

was required to submit an application to the FIPB for Press Note 1

consent. Hence, the transaction was subject to the consent and

approval of FIPB. Fulfillment of the conditions set out in Clause

4.1 preceded the vesting of rights and obligations under the

contract. The purchaser was entitled to waive the condition set out

in Clause 4.1(a). Clause 4.3(c) stipulated that if FIPB approval

was not obtained, HTIL could at its sole discretion terminate the

agreement and parties would have no claim against each other.

Under Clause 5.2 VIH BV was obliged to make an offer to Essar

Teleholdings Limited for the acquisition of its entire shareholding

in the company at a price which valued its interest in the company

on the same basis as the interest of the vendor. The tag along

rights of Essar, which was a minority shareholder, of HEL were

thus recognized. Clause 6.1 defined the obligations of HTIL in

relation to the conduct of business. Among them, in sub clause

(ix) was the obligation not to amend, terminate, vary or waive any

rights under any of the Framework agreements, TII Shareholders'

agreement or SMMS Shareholders' agreement or exercise any of

the options, rights or discretions under any such agreement other

than in accordance with the transaction documents or the IDFC

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 160 wp1325.10

Framework agreement. The Framework agreements were defined

in the agreement to mean the Centrino Framework Agreement, the

ND Callus Framework Agreement and the SMMS Framework

Agreement.

Now it is important to note that Centrino, ND Callus and

SMMS are all companies incorporated in India under the

Companies Act 1956. The expression "IDFC Framework

Agreement" was defined to mean the framework agreement to be

entered into between IDFC Private Equity Company Limited, the

Infrastructure Development Finance Company Limited, SSKI

Corporate Finance Private Limited, SMMS, Hutchison

Telecommunications (India) Limited, HITL, Omega and GSPL. The

TII shareholders' agreement meant the shareholders' agreement

dated 1 March 2006 among Centrino, ND Callus, CGP India

Investments Limited and TII Private Limited.

The vendor's obligations prior to completion under

Clause 6.2(b) was to procure that the wider group companies shall

immediately inform VIH-BV if there had been any amendment,

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 161 wp1325.10

variation or waiver of any of the rights under the framework

agreements and shareholders' agreements and/or if any of the

options granted pursuant to such agreements had been triggered

or exercised. Under Clause 8.8 the completion of obligations of

HTIL included the delivery of loan assignments duly executed by

CGP or Array, as the case may be, and HTI (BVI) Finance; the

written resignations in agreed terms of each of the directors of

each group company; the execution of the Hutch brand licence; a

tax deed duly executed by the vendor and the GSPL transfer

agreement.

From Clause 8 it is evident that it was the obligation of

HTIL to ensure execution of the terms of the transaction

documents by the respective Indian entities. Through the modality

of Clause 8.8 and Clause 8.9 the exercise of controlling power

over HEL was effectively transferred to VIH BV. Clause 9.5

stipulated that for the purpose of assessing damages suffered by

VIH BV for any breach of the agreement, the agreement shall be

treated as requiring in HTIL to procure the delivery of 66.9848 %

of the issued share capital of HEL to the purchaser and the vendor

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 162 wp1325.10

will be deemed to have transferred 66.9848 % of the issued share

capital to the purchaser on completion. Clause 10.4 envisaged that

HTIL undertook to facilitate the procuring of a replacement of the

Oracle licence for the relevant group companies. Clause 14.1

incorporated a non-compete agreement whereby HITL was

restrained directly or indirectly from carrying on, engaging in or

being economically interested in within India any business carried

on in competition with the business now carried on by HEL or its

subsidiaries. By the non-compete agreement HTIL and all its

affiliates were restrained from carrying on telecom activity in

India. Significantly, the restriction relates to the business which

was being carried on in India by HEL, the control over which was

transferred by the SPA from HTIL to VIH BV.

The diverse clauses of the SPA are indicative of the fact

that parties were conscious of the composite nature of the

transaction and created reciprocal rights and obligations that

included, but were not confined to the transfer of the CGP share.

The commercial understanding of the parties was that the

transaction related to the transfer of a controlling interest in HEL

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 163 wp1325.10

from HTIL to VIH BV. The transfer of control was not relatable

merely to the transfer of the CGP share. Inextricably woven with

the transfer of control were other rights and entitlements which

HTIL and/or its subsidiaries had assumed in pursuance of

contractual arrangements with its Indian partners and the benefit

of which would now stand transferred to VIH BV. By and as a

result of the SPA, HTIL was relinquishing its interest in the

telecommunications business in India and VIH BV was acquiring

the interest which was held earlier by HTIL.

(iii) Term sheet agreement dated 15 March 2007 and the

restated Term sheet agreement dated 24 August 2007.

On 15 March 2007 the Vodafone and Essar groups

entered into a term sheet agreement to regulate the affairs of HEL

and the relationship of the shareholders of the company. Under

the terms of the partnership Vodafone would have operational

control over HEL while Essar would have rights consistent with its

shareholding including proportionate board representation. The

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 164 wp1325.10

term sheet agreement was restated on 24 August 2007 after the

transaction received the approval of the FIPB, on the same terms as

the earlier term sheet. The term sheet agreement dated 24 August

2007 records that VIH BV has acquired the entire indirect holding

of HTIL in Vodafone Essar "including all rights, contractual or

otherwise, to acquire directly or indirectly shares in Vodafone

Essar owned by others". The recitals further state that parties

had entered into the term sheet to regulate the affairs of Vodafone

Essar (VEL) and the relationship between its shareholders. Under

Clause 2.1, Vodafone and Essar acquired the right to nominate

directors in proportion to their beneficial shareholding; initially the

Vodafone group was entitled to nominate eight directors while the

Essar Group was entitled to nominate four directors. Under Clause

2.2 the Chairman of the company was to be nominated by the

Vodafone group. Under Clause 2.3 Vodafone acquired the right to

nominate the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief

Commercial Officer, Chief Marketing Officer and Chief Technical

Officer. Clause 5.1 imposes restrictions on the transfer of

ownership of shares and inter alia provided that no share could be

transferred other than pursuant to the provisions of the term sheet

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 165 wp1325.10

or put option agreements. Clause 6 created a right of first refusal.

Under Clause 7.1 a change of control in each group would entitle

the other to require a sale of the shareholders' interest. By Clause

8 Vodafone granted to the Essar group tag along rights in respect

of the shareholding of the Essar group . Under Clause 10 certain

decisions were regarded as reserved so long as Vodafone continued

to hold directly or indirectly at least 50% of the equity of the issued

share capital of the company. Under Clause 16 the primary brand

under which the company would trade was to be the Vodafone

brand. Under Clause 22 Vodafone agreed not to compete with the

business of VEL or to enter into any telecommunications business

in India. Clause 28.7 provided that the term sheet would be

governed by and in accordance with the laws of India.

By the Term sheet agreement of 24 August 2007, VIH BV

as successor in interest of HTIL spelt out how the Indian company

is to be operated and the rights and obligations of the shareholders

inter se. This cannot by any means be regarded as a minor

adjustment made by the parties pursuant to the acquisition of one

share in CGP. On the contrary the acquisition of one share in CGP

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 166 wp1325.10

was a mode chosen by the parties to facilitate the process. The

fulfillment of the transaction required the putting into place of

structural arrangements in India that would regulate the conduct

of the business of the Indian company, the relationship between

the shareholders of the company and the contractual entitlements

accruing or arising in respect of agreements with the Indian

partners. Valuable rights came to be recognized and conferred in

the term sheet agreements. These were tangible rights having a

direct nexus with India which enabled VEL to control and carry on

business.

(iv) On 15 March 2007 Vodafone and Vodafone group PLC as

guarantors of Vodafone entered into a put option agreement with

Essar Teleholdings Limited and Essar Communications Limited,

Mauritius requiring the Vodafone group to purchase from the Essar

group shareholders all of the option shares held by them at a price

payable for the first put option shares of US $ 5 Billion. Under the

second put option the Essar group had an unconditional right to

require Vodafone to purchase from the Essar group shareholders

such shares as the Essar group may determine subject to a

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 167 wp1325.10

minimum aggregate fair market value of US $ 1 Billion and upto a

maximum aggregate fair market value of US $ 5 Billion.

(v) Tax Deed of Covenant :

Apart from the SPA a tax deed of a covenant was entered

into between the HTIL and VIH BV on 8 May 2007 in pursuance of

Clause 8.8(1) of the SPA indemnifying VIH - BV in respect of

taxation or transfer pricing liabilities payable or suffered by the

wider group companies (as defined by the SPA) on or before

completion including any reasonable cost associated with any tax

demand. Before this Court, VIH BV has stated that no arbitral

proceedings have been initiated with HTIL pursuant to the

agreement, and neither a claim nor a formal notice of claim has

been served upon the vendor under the agreement. The

documents exchanged between the parties include a disclosure

letter dated 11 February 2007 issued by HTIL to VIH BV. The

disclosure letter deems certain information to have been disclosed,

so as to obviate future disputes.

(vi) The Brand Licence Agreement

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 168 wp1325.10

The Brand Licence Agreement contains a transitional

arrangement, for a limited duration, under which a non-

transferable royalty free right was given to VIH - BV as licensee to

use the trademarks and other intellectual property rights

authorized by the licensor. As a matter of fact, after completion of

the transaction VIH BV in conformity with its obligation under

Clause 13(b) of the SPA took steps for the introduction of brand

Vodafone into the Indian market and a trademark licence

agreement was entered into on 19 December 2008 for the

introduction of brand Vodafone into India by VIH BV. The Brand

Licence had provided for a transitional arrangement till the

Vodafone brand was introduced into India.

(vii) Loan Assignment Agreements

The structure at the time when the SPA was executed

was that the share of CGP which was owned by HTI BVI was to be

sold. However, loans had been advanced by a direct wholly owned

subsidiary of HTIL. These loans owed by Array to an HTIL

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 169 wp1325.10

subsidiary would now be repayable to VIH - BV. Accordingly, loan

assignment agreements were entered into on 8 May 2007.

126. Now at this stage, it would be necessary to advert to the

admitted position as it emerges from the disclosures made by the

Petitioner before the FIPB. By its letter dated 14 March 2007 VIH

BV informed the FIPB that its effective share holding in HEL will

be 51.96 % and that "following completion of the acquisition of

HTIL's share in Hutch Essar", the ownership of Hutch Essar will be

as follows :

1. Vodafone will own a 42% direct interest in HEL

through its acquisition of 100% of CGP;

2. Through CGP Vodafone will also own 37% in TII which in turn owns 20% in HEL and 38% in Omega which in turn owns 5% in HEL.

Both TII and Omega are Indian companies. These investments

would give Vodafone a controlling interest of 52 % in HEL. In

addition HTIL's existing Indian partners Asim Ghosh, Analjit Singh

and IDFC who between them hold a 15 % interest in HEL had

agreed to retain their shareholding with full control including

voting rights and dividend rights.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 170 wp1325.10

127. By a letter dated 19 March 2007 VIH BV informed the

FIPB that the price of US $ 11.08 Billion "includes a control

premium, use and rights to the Hutch brand in India, a non-

compete agreement with the Hutch group, the value of non-voting

non convertible preference shares, various loan obligations and the

entitlement to acquire, subject to Indian foreign investment rules, a

further 15 % indirect interest in Hutch Essar". When called upon

by the FIPB to disclose a break up of the value attributed to these

components, VIH BV by its letter dated 27 March 2007 to the FIPB

stated as follows :

"1. The various assets and liabilities of CGP including (a) its 51.96 % direct and indirect equity ownership of Hutch

Essar; (b) its ownership of non-voting, non-convertible, redeemable preference shares in Telecom Investments India Private Limited (TII") and Jaykay Finholding

(India) Private Limited; (c) assumption of liabilities in various subsidiaries of CGP amounting to approximately US $ 630 million and (d) subject to Indian foreign investment rules, its rights and entitlements, including subscription rights at par value and call options, to

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 171 wp1325.10

acquire in the future a further 62.75 % of TII, and call

options, to acquire in the future, a further 54.21 % of Omega Telecom Holdings Private Limited ("Omega")

which together would give us a further 15.03 % proportionate indirect equity ownership of Hutch Essar;

and

2. Various other intangible factors such as control

premium, use and rights to the Hutch brand in India and

a non-compete agreement with HTIL.

We did not, in reaching this price, put an individual price on each of these components. Rather, they were viewed as the package based on which we should make our offer

to HTIL. Our approach was to look at the total package

of assets, liabilities and other intangible factors represented by the ownership of CGP and to assess the total value."

128. Now at this stage, it would be material to advert to the

position of the Analjit Singh and Asim Ghosh companies, taking as

the basis HTIL's letter dated 9 April 2007 to the FIPB. Analjit Singh

together with his wife held a 100% stake in Scorpio Beverages, an

Indian company which in turn held a 100 % stake in MV Health

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 172 wp1325.10

Care Services (an Indian company). The latter held a 100 % stake

in ND Callus which was also an Indian Company. Asim Ghosh held

a 100 % stake in Gold Spot, an Indian company. Gold Spot in turn

held 100 % in Plustech, also an Indian company which in turn

held a 100 % stake in Centrino, an Indian company. TII is an

Indian company of which 37.25% of the total share holding was

held by CGP India Investments Limited, a Mauritian company

indirectly held earlier by HTIL. Plustech and Centrino held 23.97

% in TII while ND Callus held 35.78 % in TII. TII directly held

12.95 % in HEL whereas 6.06 % was held through a down stream

subsidiary, Usha Martin which also an Indian company. Jaykay

which was an Indian subsidiary of TII held 0.51 %.

129. In the disclosure made by HTIL before the FIPB it was

stated that in March 2006 when the Kotak group was exiting from

HEL and HTIL was looking to simplify its ownership structure, it

was clear that the only parties which could purchase the Kotak and

HTIL stake were resident Indian citizens. These stakes of Kotak and

HTIL were then valued at Rs.1,330 Crores. Both Analjit Singh and

Asim Ghosh declined Kotak and HTIL's investment offers unless

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 173 wp1325.10

they were provided with a 'down side protection' and assistance in

obtaining financing necessary to make such investments.

Accordingly, an agreement was reached by which HTIL was

conferred, together with its group companies, certain future rights

over the TII interests acquired by Analjit Singh and Asim Ghosh in

consideration for the assistance and support which HTIL provided

for financing their acquisitions. HTIL stated in its disclosure that

put and call options over Analjit Singh and/or Asim Ghosh

companies' shares were accordingly created in terms of the

framework agreements. Under them, the Analjit Singh and Asim

Ghosh companies may sell or an HTIL group company may call

upon them to sell their entire respective share holdings in the MV

Health Care and Plus Stake companies respectively to the HTIL

group at a fair market value as may be agreed between the parties.

This was subject to regulatory and legal compliance. These options

provided for reciprocal rights for the realization of Analjit Singh

and Asim Ghosh investments in TII. HTIL was also granted an

option to subscribe for new shares in Centrino or ND Callus

representing 97 % of their enlarged share capital. In order to

effectuate the performance of the put and call options, Analjit

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 174 wp1325.10

Singh, Asim Ghosh and their respective holding companies

undertook not to transfer or allot shares except as allowed in the

framework agreements.

IDFC group investments in Omega

130. Omega Telecom Holdings Private Limited ("Omega") is

an Indian company in which Hutchison Telecommunications

(India) Limited, a Mauritian company has a holding of 45.79 %.

Omega held 5.11 % of the share holding of HEL. In June 2006 the

Hinduja group and Sumitomo of Japan decided to sell their

interest in HEL by disposing of all their interest in Omega. HTIL

arrived at an agreement with the Hinduja group for an additional

sale and purchase agreement under which HTIL purchased the

foreign component of 45.79 % of Omega and HTIL would procure

a third party to acquire the Indian stake in Omega. The Hinduja

group sold 54.21 % of the Indian share holding in Omega to a joint

venture company promoted by the IDFC group. HTIL provided a

guarantee for financing. HTIL was in turn given future rights over

the Omega interests acquired by the IDFC group in consideration of

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 175 wp1325.10

the support extended by HTIL for financing their acquisition. Put

and call options were contractually created under framework

agreements under which inter alia the HTIL group was entitled to

call upon the IDFC group to sell their share holdings in their

investment vehicle (SMMS) to the HTIL group.

131. The facts which have been disclosed before the Court

support the contention of the Additional Solicitor general that the

transaction between HTIL and VIH BV took into consideration the

following interests and entitlements :

1) HTIL held through eight down stream Mauritian

subsidiaries an aggregate of 42.34 % interest in HEL;

2) In the Indian company TII, HTIL had 37.25% interest through CGPC and its down stream subsidiaries. TII directly held 12.95 % in HEL while its down stream subsidiary, Usha Martin held 6.06 % and its subsidiary Jaykay held 0.51 %. TII's

direct and indirect holding in HEL was 19.54 % resulting in a prorata holding of 7.24% by HTIL in HEL;

3) In Omega which was an Indian company HTIL held 45.79% through its Mauritian subsidiary HTIM.

Omega held a shareholding of 5.11 % in HEL resulting in a pro rata holding of 2.34 % interest by

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 176 wp1325.10

HTIL in HEL;

4) Rights (and call and put options) by providing finance and guarantee to Asim Ghosh group of

companies to exercise control over TII and indirectly over HEL through the TII shareholders' agreement and the Centrino framework agreement dated 1 March 2006;

5) Rights ( and call and put options) by providing finance and guarantees to Analjit Singh group of companies to exercise control over TII and

indirectly over HEL through TII shareholders' agreement and ND Callus framework agreement

dated 1 March 2006;

6) Finance to SMMS to acquire shares in ITNC

(formerly Omega) with a right to acquire the share capital of Omega in future;

7) Controlling rights over ITNC through the ITNC

shareholders agreement including the right to appoint directors with a veto power to make its

interest in HEL thereby holding a beneficial interest in 2.77 % of the share capital of HEL;

8) Interest in the form of a loan of US $ 231 Million to HTV BVI which was assigned to Array;

9) Interest in the form of a loan of US $ 952 Million through HTV BVI utilized for purchasing shares in

HEL by eight Mauritian companies;

10)Interest in the form of preference share capital in JKF and TII to the extent of US $ 165.7 Million and US $ 337 Million attributing to a holding of 19.54 % of equity of HEL

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:48 ::: VBC 177 wp1325.10

132. The facts clearly establish that it would be simplistic to

assume that the entire transaction between HTIL and VIH BV was

fulfilled merely upon the transfer of a single share of CGP in the

Cayman Islands. The commercial and business understanding

between the parties postulated that what was being transferred

from HTIL to VIH BV was the controlling interest in HEL. HTIL had

through its investments in HEL carried on operations in India

which HTIL in its annual report of 2007 represented to be the

Indian mobile telecommunication operations. The transaction

between HTIL and VIH BV was structured so as to achieve the

object of discontinuing the operations of HTIL in relation to the

Indian mobile telecommunication operations by transferring the

rights and entitlements of HTIL to VIH BV. HEL was at all times

intended to be the target company and a transfer of the controlling

interest in HEL was the purpose which was achieved by the

transaction. Ernst and Young who carried out a due diligence of

the telecommunications business carried on by HEL and its

subsidiaries have made the following disclosure in its report :

"The target structure now also includes a Cayman company, CGP Investments (Holdings) Limited. CGP Investments (Holdings) Limited was not originally

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 178 wp1325.10

within the target group. After our due diligence had commenced the seller proposed that CGP Investments

(Holdings) Limited should be added to the target group and made available certain limited information

about the company. Although we have reviewed this information, it is not sufficient for us to be able to comment on any tax risks associated with the company." (emphasis supplied).

The due diligence report emphasizes that the object and intent of

the parties was to achieve the transfer of control over HEL and the

transfer of the solitary share of CGP, a Cayman Islands company

was put into place at the behest of HTIL, subsequently as a mode of

effectuating the goal.

133. The true nature of the transaction as it emerges from the

transactional documents is that the transfer of the solitary share of

the Cayman Islands company reflected only a part of the

arrangement put into place by the parties in achieving the object of

transferring control of HEL to VIH BV. HTIL had put into place,

during the period when it was in control of HEL, a complex

structure including the financing of Indian companies which in turn

had holdings directly or indirectly in HEL. In consideration call

and put options were created and the benefit of those options had

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 179 wp1325.10

to be transferred to the purchaser as an integral part of the transfer

of control over HEL. Hence, it is from that perspective that the

framework agreements pertaining to the Analjit Singh and Asim

Ghosh group of companies and IDFC have to be perceived. These

were agreements with Indian companies and the transaction

between HTIL and VIH BV takes due account of the benefit of those

agreements.

134. The price paid by VIH BV to HTIL of US $ 11.01 Billion

factored in, as part of the consideration, diverse rights and

entitlements that were being transferred to VIH BV. Many of these

entitlements were not relatable to the transfer of the CGP share.

Indeed, if the transfer of the solitary share of CGP could have

effectuated the purpose it was not necessary for the parties to enter

into a complex structure of business documentation. The

transactional documents are not merely incidental or consequential

to the transfer of the CGP share, but recognized independently the

rights and entitlements of HTIL in relation to the Indian business

which were being transferred to VIH BV.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 180 wp1325.10

135. We began the record of submissions by adverting to the

contention of the Petitioner that if any of the shares held by the

Mauritian companies were sold in India, there would be no liability

to capital gains tax because of the Convention on the Avoidance of

Double Taxation between India and Mauritius. The crux of the

submission is that the entire transaction in the case is subsumed in

the transfer of a share of an upstream overseas company which

exercised control over Mauritian companies. As we have noted

earlier, it is simplistic to assume that all that the transaction

involved was the transfer of one share of an upstream overseas

company which was in a position to exercise control over a

Mauritian company. The transaction between VIH BV and HTIL

was a composite transaction which covered a complex web of

structures and arrangements, not referable to the transfer of one

share of an upstream overseas company alone. The transfer of that

one share alone would not have been sufficient to consummate the

transaction. The transaction documents are adequate in

themselves to establish the untenability of the Petitioner's

submissions.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 181 wp1325.10

136. The submission of VIH BV that the transaction involves

merely a sale of a share of a foreign company from one non-

resident company to another cannot be accepted. The edifice of

the submission has been built around the theory that the share of

CGP, a company situated in the Cayman Islands was a capital asset

situated outside India and all that was transferred was that which

was attached to and emanated from the solitary share. It was on

this hypothesis that it was urged that the rights and entitlements

which flow out of the holding of a share cannot be dissected from

the ownership of the share. The purpose of the discussion earlier

has been to establish the fallacy in the submission. The transfer of

the CGP share was not adequate in itself to achieve the object of

consummating the transaction between HTIL and VIH BV. Intrinsic

to the transaction was a transfer of other rights and entitlements.

These rights and entitlements constitute in themselves capital

assets within the meaning of Section 2(14) which expression is

defined to mean property of any kind held by an assessee.

137. Under Section 5(2) the total income of a non-resident

includes all income from whatever source derived which (a) is

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 182 wp1325.10

received or is deemed to be received in India or (b) accrues or

arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India. Parliament

has designedly used the words "all income from whatever source

derived". These are words of width and amplitude. Clause (i) of

Section 9 explains the ambit of incomes which shall be deemed to

accrue or arise in India. Parliament has designedly postulated that

all income accruing or arising whether directly or indirectly, (a)

through or from any business connection in India or (b) through or

from any property in India; or (c) through or from any asset or

source of income in India or (d) through the transfer of a capital

asset situate in India would be deemed to accrue or arise in India.

Where an asset or source of income is situated in India or where

the capital asset is situated in India, all income which accrues or

arises directly or indirectly through or from it shall be treated as

income which is deemed to accrue or arise in India.

138. VIH BVs disclosure to the FIPB is indicative of the fact

that the consideration that was paid to HTIL in the amount of US $

11.01 Billion was for the acquisition of a panoply of entitlements

including a control premium, use and rights to the Hutch brand in

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 183 wp1325.10

India, a non-compete agreement with the Hutch group, the value of

non-voting non convertible preference shares, various loan

obligations and the entitlement to acquire subject to Indian foreign

investment rules, a further 15% indirect interest in HEL.

139. The manner in which the consideration should be

apportioned is not something which can be determined at this

stage. Apportionment lies within the jurisdiction of the Assessing

Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings.

Undoubtedly it would be for the Assessing Officer to apportion the

income which has resulted to HTIL between that which has accrued

or arisen or what is deemed to have accrued or arisen as a result of

a nexus within the Indian taxing jurisdiction and that which lies

outside. Such an enquiry would lie outside the realm of the

present proceedings. But once this Court comes to the conclusion

that the transaction between HTIL and VIH BV had a sufficient

nexus with Indian fiscal jurisdiction, the issue of jurisdiction would

have to be answered by holding that the Indian tax authorities

acted within their jurisdiction in issuing a notice to show cause to

the Petitioner for not deducting tax at source.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 184 wp1325.10

140. In assessing the true nature and character of a

transaction, the label which parties may ascribe to the transaction

is not determinative of its character. The nature of the transaction

has to be ascertained from the covenants of the contract and from

the surrounding circumstances. In National Cement Mines

Industries Ltd. vs. C. I. T.,49 Mr.Justice J.C. Shah speaking for the

Supreme Court emphasized the principles of interpretation to be

adopted by the Court in construing a commercial transaction :

"But in assessing the true character of the receipt for the purpose of the Income-tax Act, inability to ascribe to the transaction a definite category is of little

consequence. It is not the nature of the receipt under the general law but in commerce that is material. It is

often difficult to distinguish whether an agreement is for payment of a debt by installments or for making annual payments in the nature of income. The court has, on an

appraisal of all the facts, to assess whether a transaction is commercial in character yielding income or is one in consideration of parting with property for repayment of capital in installments. No single test of universal application can be discovered for solution of the

problem. The name which the parties may give to the transaction which is the source of the receipt and the characterization of the receipt by them are of little moment, and the true nature and character of the transaction have to be ascertained from the covenants of the contract in the light of the surrounding circumstances."

49 (1961) 42 ITR 69

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 185 wp1325.10

In the judgment of the House of Lords in Investors Compensation

Scheme Ltd. vs. West Bromwich Building Society & Ors.,50 Lord

Hoffmann, while adverting to the principles by which contractual

documents are nowadays construed drew attention to the effort in

the law "to assimilate the way in which such documents are

interpreted by Judges to the common sense principles by which any

serious occurrence would be interpreted in the ordinary life". The

contemporary principles underlying the interpretation of

commercial contracts have been set out in the judgment:

"(1) Interpretation is the ascertainment of the

meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge

which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract.

-(2) The background was famously referred to by Lord Wilberforce as the "matrix of fact", but this phrase is, if anything, an understated description of what the background may include. Subject to the requirement

that it should have been reasonably available to the parties and to the exception to be mentioned next, it includes absolutely anything which would have affected the way in which the language of the document would have been understood by a reasonable man.

-(3) The law excludes from the admissible

50 (1997) UKHL 28

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 186 wp1325.10

background the previous negotiations of the parties and their declarations of subjective intent. They are

admissible only in an action for rectification. The law makes this distinction for reasons of practical policy and,

in this respect only, legal interpretation differs from the way we would interpret utterances in ordinary life. The boundaries of this exception are in some respects unclear. But this is not the occasion on which to explore

them.

-(4) The meaning which a document (or any other utterance) would convey to a reasonable man is not the

same thing as the meaning of its words. The meaning of words is a matter of dictionaries and grammars' the

meaning of the document is what the parties using those words against the relevant background would reasonably have been understood to mean. The background may

not merely enable the reasonable man to choose between the possible meanings of words which are ambiguous but even (as occasionally happens in ordinary life) to conclude that the parties must, for whatever reason, have

used the wrong words or syntax. (see Mannai Investments Co.Ltd. v. Eagle Star Life Assurance Co. Ltd.

(1997) 2 W.L.R. 945.

-(5) The "rule" that words should be given their

"natural and ordinary meaning" reflects the common sense proposition that we do not easily accept that people have made linguistic mistakes, particularly in formal documents. On the other hand, if one would nevertheless conclude from the background that

something must have gone wrong with the language, the law does not require judges to attribute to the parties an intention which they plainly could not have had. Lord Diplock made this point more vigorously when he said in The Antaios Comania Neviera S.A. v. Salen Rederierna A.B. 1985 A.C. 191, 201:

"...if detailed semantic and syntactical analysis

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 187 wp1325.10

of words in a commercial contract is going to lead to a conclusion that flouts business

commonsense, it must be made to yield to business commonsense."

Giving effect to business common sense is the touchstone.

141. In Hideo Yoshimoto vs. Canterbury Golf International

Ltd.,51 the Court of Appeal in New Zealand, adverted to an article

of Lord Steyn52 in which the Law Lord has noted the distinct trend

towards an objective theory of contract which gives effect to the

reasonable expectations of honest people. The expectations which

will be protected are those that are,in an objective sense, common

to both parties. In this regard, there has been a shift away from a

black-letter approach to questions of interpretation to a more

purposive interpretation. The subject matter of the transaction in

the present case, must, therefore, be viewed from a commercial

and realistic perspective. That perspective respects the form of the

transaction adopted by the parties. The terms of the transaction is

what the court interprets applying rules of ordinary and natural

construction. That perspective would adopt what a normal and

51 (2000) NZCA 350 52 Johan Steyn, "Contract Law: Fulfilling the Reasonable Expectations of Honest Men" (1997) 113 LQR 433, at 433-434.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 188 wp1325.10

commercially prudent investor would have viewed. From the

perspective of Income Tax Law what is relevant is the place from

which or the source from which the profits or gains have generated

or have accrued or arisen to the seller. The income accrued and

arose and was derived as a consequence of the divestment of

HTIL's interest in India. If there was no divestment or

relinquishment of its interest in India, there was no occasion for the

income to arise. The real taxable event is the divestment of HTIL's

interests which comprises in itself various facets or components

which include a transfer of interests in different group entities.

142. That leads to the question as to the obligation to deduct

tax under Section 195. While construing the provisions of Section

18(3A) and Section 42 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 in

Agarwal Chambers of Comerce Ltd. vs. Ganpat Rai Hira Lal,53

the Supreme Court held thus:

"Those persons who are bound under the Act to make deduction at the time of payment of any income, profits or gains are not concerned with the ultimate results of the assessment.. The scheme of the Act is that deductions are required to be made out of "salaries", "interest on securities" and other heads of "income, profits and gains"

53 (1958) 33 ITR 245

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 189 wp1325.10

and adjustments are made finally at the time of assessment. Whether in the ultimate result the amount of

tax deducted or any lesser or bigger amount would be payable as income tax in accordance with the law in

force would not affect the rights, liabilities and powers of a person under section 18 or of the agent under sections 40(2) and 42(1). As to what would be the effect and result of the application of section 17 if and when any

appropriate proceedings are taken is not a matter which arises in this appeal between the appellant and the respondent nor can that matter be adjudicated upon in these proceedings. That is a matter which would be

entirely between the respondent and the Income tax authorities seized of the assessment."

In Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh vs. CIT (supra),

the Supreme Court once again emphasized that the scheme of sub-

sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 195 and Section 197 leaves no

doubt that the expression "any other sum chargeable under the

provisions of this Act" would mean a "sum" on which tax is

leviable. The test is whether payment of the sum to a non-resident

is chargeable to tax under the Act. The sum, as the Supreme Court

observed, may be income or income hidden or otherwise embedded

therein. If so, tax is required to be deducted on the sum. The sum

which is to be paid may be income out of different heads of

income. The scheme of tax deducted at source applies not only to

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 190 wp1325.10

the amount paid which wholly represents income chargeable but

also to gross sums which may not be income or profits of the

recipient. The Supreme Court noted that in some cases, a fraction

of the sum may be taxable income while in other cases such as

interest, commission, transfer of rights of patents, goodwill or

drawings for plant and machinery and such other transactions it

may contain a large sum as taxable income under the Act.

However, whatever may be the position, the Supreme Court held,

the actual computation of income would arise at the time of the

regular assessment. In other words, Section 195 is a provision for

tentative deduction of income tax subject to regular assessment.

The rights of the payee or of the recipient are safeguarded by sub-

sections (2) and (3) of Section 195 and Section 197. For, as the

Supreme Court observed:

"Further, the rights of the payee or recipient are fully safeguarded under sections 195(2), 195(3) and 197. The only thing which is required to be done by them is to

file an application for determination by the Assessing Officer that such sum would not be chargeable to tax in the case of the recipient, or for determination of the appropriate proportion of such sum so chargeable, or for grant of certificate authorising the recipient to receive the amount without deduction of tax, or deduction of income-tax at any lower rates or no deduction. On such determination, tax at the appropriate rate could be

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 191 wp1325.10

deducted at the source. If no such application is filed, income-tax on such sum is to be deducted and it is the

statutory obligation of the person responsible for paying such "sum" to deduct tax thereon before making

payment. He has to discharge the obligation of tax deduction at source."

143. The same view was taken by Hon'ble Shri Justice S.H.

Kapadia (as the Learned Chief Justice then was) when His Lordship

spoke for a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of

Income Tax vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co.Ltd.54 The

Division Bench observed that the provision under Section 195 is

only for a tentative deduction of income subject to regular

assessment and the rights of parties are not in any manner

adversely affected.

144. The basic test under Section 195 is that the payment has

been made to a non-resident of a sum chargeable under the

provisions of the Act. Any person responsible for paying such a

sum to a non-resident is liable to deduct income tax at the time

when a credit of such income is effected or at the time when

payment is made. As the Supreme Court observed in Eli Lily, the

54 (2000) 245 ITR 823

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 192 wp1325.10

provisions of Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are in the

nature of a machinery provision enacted in order to effectuate the

collection and recovery of tax. Given a sufficient territorial

connection or nexus between the person sought to be charged and

the country seeking to tax him, income tax may extend to that

person in respect of his foreign income. The connection can be

based on residence or business connection within the taxing State

or the situation within the State of an asset or source of income

from which the taxable income is derived. Once the nexus is

shown to exist, the provisions of Section 195 would operate. Even

though the revenue laws of a country may not be enforceable in

another, that does not imply that the Courts of a country shall not

enforce the law against the residents of another within their own

territories. The principle is explained by the Supreme Court in

Electronic Corporation of India Ltd.vs. CIT,55 thus:

Now it is perfectly clear that it is envisaged under our

constitutional scheme that Parliament in India may make laws which operate extra-territorially. Article 245(1) of the Constitution prescribes the extent of laws made by Parliament. They may be made for the whole or any part of the territory of India. Article 245(2) declares that no law made by the Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial

55 1989 Supp(2) SCC 642

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 193 wp1325.10

operation. Therefore, a Parliamentary statute having extra-territorial operation cannot be ruled out from

contemplation. The operation of the law can extend to persons, things and acts outside the territory of India.

The general principle, flowing from the sovereignty of States, is that laws made by one state can have no operation in another State. The apparent opposition between the two positions is reconciled by the statement

found in British Columbia Electric Railway Company Limited v. King (2 (1946( AC 527:

"A legislature which passes a law having extra- territorial operation may find that what it has

enacted cannot be directly enforced, but the act is not invalid on that account, and the

courts of its country must enforce the law with the machinery available to them."

In other words, while the enforcement of the law cannot be contemplated in a foreign State, it can, nonetheless, be enforced by the courts of the enacting State to the degree that is permissible with the machinery available

to them. They will not be regarded by such courts as

invalid on the ground of such extra-territoriality."

Chargeability and enforceability are distinct legal conceptions. A

mere difficulty in compliance or in enforcement is not a ground to

avoid observance. In the present case, the transaction in question

had a significant nexus with India. The essence of the transaction

was a change in the controlling interest in HEL which constituted a

source of income in India. The transaction between the parties

covered within its sweep, diverse rights and entitlements. The

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 194 wp1325.10

Petitioner by the diverse agreements that it entered into has a

nexus with Indian jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the

proceedings which have been initiated by the Income Tax

Authorities cannot be held to lack jurisdiction.

145. By the order passed by the Supreme Court on 23 January

2009, the Second Respondent was directed to determine the

jurisdictional challenge raised by the Petitioner. Liberty was

reserved to the Petitioner to challenge the decision of the Second

Respondent on the preliminary issue, if it was determined against

the Petitioner, by addressing a challenge before this Court. The

issue of jurisdiction for the reasons already noted earlier, has been

correctly decided.

146. After Mr.Salve had concluded his submissions,

Dr.Singhvi submitted that the tax authority is not competent to

treat the Petitioner as an assessee in default under Section 201, as

amended by the Finance Act, 2008 and the amendment to Section

201 by the Finance Act, 2008 is unconstitutional. We have not

considered it appropriate to adjudicate upon the submission of

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 195 wp1325.10

Dr.Singhvi at this stage because :

(a) In the impugned order, the tax authority has not invoked jurisdiction on the basis of Section 201 as amended by the Finance Act, 2008; and

(b) In fact, in paragraph 970 of the impugned order, it has been held that the amendment to Section 201 by the Finance

Act, 2008 is clarificatory, meaning thereby that the liability sought to be fastened upon the Petitioner is based on the

provisions as they stood prior to the amendment.

However, we clarify that it is open to the Petitioner to agitate

before the tax authority that the Petitioner had reasonable cause

and a genuine belief that it was not liable to deduct tax at source

and that no penal liability can be fastened upon the Petitioner. In

Eli Lilly (supra), the Supreme Court held that "the liability to levy

of penalty can be fastened only on the person who does not have

good and sufficient reason for not deducting the tax" the burden

being on the person to prove the existence of good and sufficient

reasons. (see also Star India P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central

Excise.56) We hence, keep this issue open to be urged by the

56 (2006) 280 ITR 321 (S.C.)

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 ::: VBC 196 wp1325.10

Petitioner before the tax authority.

147. For the reasons which we have indicated, we do not find

any merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)

( J.P.Devadhar, J.)

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:49 :::