VODAFONE CASESUMMARISED BY ROHIT KAPOOR

Vodafone Case Summarised By Rohit Kapoor
Facts of the Case: Hutchison (Hongkong) is a Non resident having no tax implications in India. Cayman Island (Mauritius) was a 100 % Subsidiary of Hutchison (Hongkong). Hutchison Essar was an Indian co. in which Cayman Island(Mauritius) was holding 67 % shares and Essar had total holding of 33 % only.
Mauritius is considered as a tax Heaven Country, So Cayman Island was incorporated for this transaction exclusively. Vodafone is a co. incorporatedin Nederland (UK), treated as foreign co. in India.
Transactions:Cayman has acquired 67 % shares in Hutchison Essarinitially, Hutchison (Hongkong) has sold Cayman Island to Vodafone (UK) @ $ 10 billion in 2007and Vodafone has paid entire sum to Hutchison (Hongkong) without deducting any TDS.
Impact:As per Indian tax law, this transaction was not taxable in India, because Buyer and seller both were non resident of India and company sold(Cayman Island) was also a foreign co. Indirectly the controlling Interest of Hutchison Essar (Indian Co.). has been sold through this transaction. Because Cayman Island was only a paper co., which has no value in itself withoutcontrolling interest in Hutchison Essar (Indian Co.).Hutchison has sold shares of Indian co. in form of Cayman Island to Vodafone UK. But by this method they have saved capital gain taxes (Ought to be arisen in India) on such Transaction.
Game Begins Here:Assessing officer (Indian Income Tax Dept.) has issueda show cause notice u/s 201 to Vodafone for imposing penalty u/s 271C (Totaldemand of Rs. 11000 Crore) on non deduction of TDS u/s 195 foramount paid to Hutchison (HK). Vodafone has not replied to that notice and filed a writ petition to challenge the jurisdiction of Income taxDepartment for issuing such notice, before Mumbai High Court. HonourableMumbai High Court has rejected their petition with cost. Then Vodafone has filed an SLP beforeSupreme Court against such rejection. Honourable Supreme Court has transferred the case to Income Tax department with specific instructions to examine Factsand determine that whether dept. had jurisdiction or not for issuing suchnotice. SC asksVodafoneto appear before Income Tax Dept in such case. The court also made it clear that if the I-T Department passes any orderfor penalty, it would not be enforced, till Supreme Court further decides themain matter of tax dispute.
Some Other Interesting Facts of this Case:Hutchison (Hongkong) is still not a party to any proceeding but the A.O. who has opened this case, has been promoted to ChiefCommissioner of Income tax directly. Law has been amendedretrospectively to stop tax evasion by this method and thereafter Income tax Dept. Has opened more than 50 similar cases; Like- The revenue department is embroiled in a legal battle with US-based General Electric for its 60% stake sale in Genpact. Stakes was sold for $500 million in 2007.
Few Questions which are still unanswered:Does asking a non-resident to comply with Indian legal procedures amount to ExtraTerritorial Jurisdiction Can a company merely having a incorporation certificate of a tax heaven country and a few files in its office, should be allowed to evade taxes by various methods
Updates in Case:The tax office had asked Vodafone to pay $2.5 billion (Approx Rs. 11218 Crore). On 15thNov2010 – India’s top court (Supreme court) directed Vodafone (VOD.L) to deposit $550 million within three weeks in relation to a $2.5 billion taxdispute. Vodafone has also been directed to make a bank guarantee worth 1.9 billion within eight weeks.
On 4thAUG, 2011: Referring section 9 of the I-T Act, which defines Income deemed to accrue or arise in India, Vodafone said itdoes not mention any such transfer of control to be taxed.”Even the Indian firms which pay their dividends outsideIndiaare non-taxable underthe Act,.
On 5thAUG, 2011: Vodafonetold theSupreme Courtthat theRevenue Departmentcannot impose a Rs 11,000-crore tax relating to its acquisition of Hutchison Whampoa Ltd’sIndian operations unless Parliament made a specific laws to impose capitalgains tax on such deals.
On 13th Sep. 2011: Vodafone has paid Rs.3,900-cr Tax Under Protest.
The Judgement Day:20thJan 2012:
Supreme Court’s held ruling to set aside the Bombay High Court judgement asking the company to pay income tax of INR 11,000 crore.
The court also asked the IT department to return Rs 2,500 crore deposited by Vodafone, in compliance of its interim order, within two months along with 4 per cent interest.
“The government has no jurisdiction over Vodafone’s purchase of mobile assets in India as the transaction took place in Cayman Islandsbetween HTIL & Vodafone.” Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia said.
The Income Tax department can file a review petition on the Supreme Court’s judgement. Technically the government can go in for a reviewbut I do not think this is a fit case for that because extensive hearings have already taken place.
This Article is shared by Rohit Kapoor. He can be Reached at[email protected]