India decides to fight Cairn arbitration decision

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

India decides to fight Cairn arbitration decision

Every case sets a standard

The Indian government will appeal the arbitration decision to award Cairn Energy $1.4 billion in a transfer pricing dispute after negotiations between the company and the government failed to produce a compromise.

The Cairn case is not over despite almost a decade in the courts and subsequent talks between the Indian government and the energy company to try and settle the claim. The government is appealing the decision in case Cairn tries to claim its award.

One government official told the media that “just in case enforcement proceedings are initiated, India is confident to address them and will strongly defend its interests and sovereign rights”.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled against the Income Tax Department on December 23 2020. Facing growing unease among its shareholders, Cairn Energy has identified the Indian state assets it could claim as payment for the $1.4 billion arbitration award.

The company has also turned to other countries for support. Courts in five countries, including the UK and the US, have since recognised Cairn’s claim to the arbitration award. Nevertheless, the Indian government is sticking to its position in the case.

“Cairn had set up a tax abusive structure and did not pay taxes anywhere in the world on the gains that it made in India,” said the government official, according to media reports. “It was well within India’s sovereign powers to redress the situation of double non-taxation and tax abuse.”

Cairn CEO Simon Thomson travelled to Delhi to meet with Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and then Finance Secretary Ajay Bhushan Pandey in February 2021. Unfortunately, the talks did not produce an agreement to finally end the dispute and the hopes of a solution were dashed.

However, the Indian official stressed that the government is still “open to a constructive settlement of tax disputes within the existing legal framework”. It may take yet another round in court to end this case once and for all.

Background of the case

The Cairn case revolves around capital gains tax on a restructured company sold a decade ago. The Edinburgh-based company restructured its operations in India and transferred ownership of its Rajasthan oil field to Cairn India in 2006.

As part of the plan, Cairn India acquired the entire share capital of Cairn India Holdings from Cairn UK Holdings in exchange for 69% of its shares. The company argued this was a business reorganisation with no tax motive driving it, but the Indian Tax Department saw it differently.

In 2011, Cairn Energy sold most of its holding in the Indian unit to billionaire Anil Agarwal’s Vedanta Resources for $8.7 billion. However, the tax authority barred the company from selling the residual stake of 9.8% and the government froze the dividend payments from Cairn India to Cairn Energy.

The Indian government retrospectively amended the tax rules in 2012 to grant itself the power to go after merger and acquisition (M&A) deals all the way back to 1962 if the underlying assets were in India. “The 2012 amendment muddied the waters for everyone,” said Chitranshul Sinha, partner at Dua Associates.

In 2014, the tax department argued that the UK oil and gas company owed $1.4 billion in capital gains tax from the flotation of its Indian subsidiary on the Bombay Stock Exchange in 2007. The tax authority would later seize 10% of Cairn India’s shares, valued at around $1 billion, in pursuit of back taxes.

After failing to resolve the matter through the Indian judiciary, the Edinburgh-based company filed a dispute under the UK-India investment treaty and sought international arbitration that started in 2015 for the losses over expropriation of its investments in India from the minority holding.

Despite attempts to reach a $600 million settlement, the case continued and the government tried to raise pressure on the company to concede. It would be five years before Cairn got the ruling it wanted.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled in favour of Cairn over the Income Tax Department. However, the Indian government gave no indication it would comply with the decision. As a result, the case will continue in Singapore, where the Indian authorities have also appealed the Vodafone case.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Holland & Knight, Nelson Mullins and McCarter & English made the joint-most tax partner hires in the US last year, according to annual ITR Talent Tracker data
Despite a three-year-high in tax revenues generated from settling TP cases, HMRC reported a sharp fall in resolved MAP disputes
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
Gift this article