Vodafone SC hearing: Week seven

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Vodafone SC hearing: Week seven

Week seven of the Supreme Court hearing saw Vodafone’s counsel conclude his case by arguing that section 195 of the Income Tax Act cannot be applicable to taxpayers who do not have any presence in the country.

Harish Salve contended that the words “any person” contained in section 195 should be construed “sensibly”. He argued that enforcement of this provision would be impossible without an Indian presence.

Salve added that if the court were to rule against Vodafone on the basic question of chargeability, it could be on three grounds: lifting of corporate veil; transfer of underlying assets in India; or relinquishment of rights in India.

Justice Swatanter Kumar asked whether making a payment which resulted in providing control over an Indian company could create presence in India. Salve responded by saying that merely because the recipient has a tax presence or income chargeable to tax in India, a payer who has no tax presence in India cannot be obliged to deduct tax. He stated that any other construction of section 195 would mean that the responsibility to deduct tax would be cast on the principal officer of a non-resident who has no presence in India.

Tough questions

Salve’s 16th and final day of arguments saw him face numerous questions from the three judge bench, including questions on the representations made by Hutchison Telecommunications International Limited, the seller entity based in Cayman Islands, to its shareholders and to other regulatory authorities.

However, the best part of the day saw the court questioning over whether Vodafone acquired only shares or something apart from shares.

Chief Justice Kapadia posed a hypothetical situation and observed that in a case where A (share transfer) + B (various rights) is transferred and B is integral to the transaction, without B, there would be no value to the context and to that extent nexus was established.

Salve replied by arguing that nexus cannot be used to tax a transaction under section 9 of Income Tax Act 1961.

Solicitor General Nariman will begin his arguments on behalf of the revenue authorities on Tuesday September 20. 

The case continues.

The summary of proceedings in this article is based on the editorial feed provided by Taxsutra.com which is covering the hearing in technical detail on a daily basis.

Vodafone SC hearing: Week six

Vodafone SC hearing: Week five

Vodafone SC hearing: Week four

Vodafone SC hearing: Week three

Vodafone SC hearing: Week two

Vodafone SC hearing: Week one

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
Gift this article