Vodafone SC hearing: week one

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Vodafone SC hearing: week one

Vodafone’s much-anticipated India Supreme Court hearing started with a bang yesterday with a lengthy argument by the telecommunications company criticising the country’s tax authority.

The dispute has dominated headlines ever since Vodafone made the $11.2 billion purchase of a 67% stake in Indian cellular phone operator Hutchison Essar from Hong Kong's Hutchison Telecommunications in 2007.

Vodafone opened the hearing yesterday by questioning the tax authorities’ decision to slap a $2.5 billion tax bill on capital gains from the transaction.

Senior advocate, Harish Salve, representing Vodafone said that the tax department has no authority to tax the transaction as the deal took place between two foreign companies.

He added that the deal was a transfer of control of “two downstream companies by the two foreign companies and it cannot be a basis [for the tax department] to exercise jurisdiction".

Vodafone’s other legal counsel is Abhishek Singhvi, who is also a ruling Congress party spokesman.

The three-judge bench, headed by Justice SH Kapadia, then asked questions about the nature of the transaction and commented on observations made by the Bombay High Court in a previous round of the dispute.

As the case continues, Vodafone are likely to argue that since the transfer is of a capital asset situated outside India, the gains arising there from should not be liable to tax in India in the hands of the non-resident seller entity and that the Indian withholding tax provisions under section 195 of the Income Tax Act do not apply to offshore entities making offshore payments.

The authorities will disagree and say that since the transaction under consideration had a substantial nexus in India, it would result in an obligation being cast on Vodafone to deduct tax at source under section 195.

Previously, the Bombay High Court ruled that once territorial nexus is established, the provisions of section 195 would operate.

The case continues.

Follow www.internationaltaxreview.com for full coverage of the hearing.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Inflexion’s proposed minority stake in Baker Tilly Netherlands could propel the firm in the Dutch market, CEO Ronald Hoeksel tells ITR
While the US’s dramatic exit from the OECD’s global tax deal naturally grabbed headlines, Trump’s premeditated move shouldn’t detract from pillar two’s lofty ambitions
The ‘big four’ firm’s audit of gambling company Entain is under the spotlight; in other news, Ireland shrugs off Trump’s rejection of pillar two
Mid-market European private equity house Inflexion, which also backs law firm DWF, has agreed to acquire a minority stake in the Dutch tax advisory firm
Donald Trump’s inauguration, pillar two, APAs and TP were all up for discussion as ITR spoke to Baker McKenzie’s two newly minted US partners
In-house teams that want a balance of internal control and external expertise for pillar two should seriously consider co-sourcing models, Russell Gammon of Tax Systems argues
The OECD has vowed to continue working with the US despite the president effectively pulling the country out of the organisation’s global minimum tax deal
Norton Rose Fulbright highlights a Brazilian investment fund as a practical example of how new Dutch tax rules will require significant attention from foreign companies
Thomson Reuters now has ‘end-to-end capability’ for its tax workflow business, according to its president for tax accounting and audit professionals
Patrick O’Gara, who is rated as a ‘highly regarded practitioner’ by World Tax, had spent over 20 years at Baker McKenzie
Gift this article