Mobility paves Samsung’s silver path
The Korean giant’s early bet on mobile phones helped it hit the $10-bn mark in India, but in its 25th year it ...
India has challenged in Singapore an international tribunal’s verdict in favour of British telecom giant Vodafone Group in a case involving a ₹20,000-crore demand from the India’s income-tax authorities.
The challenge is against the award by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague that held that the retrospective legislation was in breach of the guarantee of fair and equitable treatment under the Bilateral Investment Treaty.
The tribunal had also admonished the government and to cease and desist in future from such breaches of the international treaty.
Almost back-to-back, in another blow, New Delhi lost another arbitration case involving the retrospective tax amendment against Cairn Energy Plc, where the tribunal has asked the government to pay up over $1.2 billion in damages, plus interest and legal costs.
Vodafone had acquired a controlling stake in Hutchison Essar in 2007 through a purchase that took place overseas in a deal valued at $11.2 billion. India’s tax department said Vodafone should have withheld tax on the deal and issued a notice seeking ₹11,218 crore, later augmented by ₹7,900 crore in penalties.
Vodafone filed an appeal against the income-tax notice and won the case in the apex court. But, the government amended the Income Tax Act retrospectively in 2012, after which the company initiated arbitration proceedings. The government need not be apologetic about its resolve to stand firm.
Let us delve a little deeper into the facts of the Vodafone case. The transfer by Hutchison of its 67 per cent stake in a Camay Island company to Vodafone was all about its telecom assets and operations in India. That being the case it was disingenuous to say that the transfer happening in a distant if not clandestine tax haven had nothing to do with India.
If a capital asset is located in India, its transfer gives rise to capital gains tax. Period. This applies as much to residents as to non-residents. After all the Cayman Island company was incorporated specifically to control the Indian operations of Hutch and, therefore, its shares represented the underlying value of the Indian assets So, there is indeed a level-playing field and foreigners are not discriminated against.
It is respectfully submitted that the Supreme Court did not go into the substance of the transaction and was swayed by the form. Its observation that the business connection rule of taxing foreign income cannot be extended to capital asset was fallacious because Cayman Island shares had no value independent of capital assets of Hutch in India.
The then Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, therefore, saw no option but to make a clarificatory retrospective amendment to overrule the Supreme Court verdict.
It is easy for tax liberals to be sanctimonious in their advice to the Indian government. No sovereign government likes to let go of its just share of the tax revenues. Isn’t the US government justifiably angry with Ireland for providing tax sanctuary to US companies, notably Apple Computers that is US’ pride?
Hasn’t the OECD given its thumbs up to the rights of its member-nations to put their shovels into the profits of multinational companies leaving their footprints in multiple nations on the equitable ground that the nation where a profit is earned gives that nation the right to tax it? Which by the way vindicates the Indian government’s so-called Google tax, pilloried by our own commentariat more out of its desire to be seen as liberal rather than rational.
In any case, there has been a lingering doubt in knowledgeable quarters whether an income-tax matter can become a subject of arbitration. Certain matters like crimes are not arbitrable. Can a company thumb its nose at the Indian government by conveniently calling in the arbitrator?
The government must be applauded for digging in and not caving to international and domestic pressure.
The writer is a chartered accountant
The Korean giant’s early bet on mobile phones helped it hit the $10-bn mark in India, but in its 25th year it ...
Antrix should adopt a different tactic than merely fighting over jurisdiction: Experts
Invest in relationships, enterprise, behaviour, effort and learning
From different types of osmoses to new membranes, researchers have come up with ways of drawing water
High valuation and stiff competition from larger players are a dampener
₹1503 • HDFC Bank S1S2R1R2COMMENT 1500148015101525 As the stock has broken out of resistance at ₹1,500, ...
The stock of Kajaria Ceramics Limited, after witnessing a fresh breakout, on Tuesday hit a fresh 52-week high ...
Will a stock continue its current trend or will it reverse? We tell you how you can read chart patterns to ...
In these isolated times when people yearn for a slice of the familiar, amateur and professional chefs are ...
‘You ready to go to work?’ Joe Biden had asked Kamala Harris before naming her as his running mate. ‘Oh my ...
Writer Narendra’s latest book, rich with vignettes from Bastar and his native village in Uttar Pradesh, ...
On the eve of his 86th birthday, a peek into an interview-based book that reveals the actor’s many moods, ...
Digital is becoming dominant media, but are companies and their ad agencies transforming fast enough to make a ...
Slow Network, promoted by journalist-lyricist Neelesh Misra, pushes rural products and experiences
How marketers can use the traditional exchange of festive wishes meaningfully
For Fortune, a brand celebrating its 20th anniversary, it was a rude shock to become the butt of social media ...
Three years after its inception, compliance with GST procedures remains a headache for exporters, job workers ...
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives of companies are altering the prospects for wooden toys of ...
Aequs Aerospace to create space for large-scale manufacture of toys at Koppal
And it has every reason to smile. Covid-19 has triggered a consumer shift towards branded products as ...