India: Tax Treaties

In December 2020, an arbitral tribunal ordered India to pay Cairn Energy about USD 1.2 billion, plus interest and costs, for a tax demand raised under a retrospective amendment. Three months earlier, Vodafone had won a similar case. Both claims succeeded because the investment treaties under which they were brought did not exclude tax. Under the treaties India signs today, neither claim could have been brought at all.

The Delhi Tribunal's recent ruling in Paul Wurth Italia has reshaped the application of the force of attraction rule under tax treaties, emphasizing that a permanent establishment's mere existence cannot justify taxation of all source-country profits. This decision marks a critical shift toward requiring demonstrable factual and functional nexus between the PE and disputed income, signaling a more restrained interpretation of this contested principle in international taxation.

A person living outside India gifts shares of a US company to a family member or associate resident in India. No price is paid, no money leaves India, and there may be no commercial deal between them. It looks like a simple private transfer.

India’s General Anti-Avoidance Rule (“GAAR”) framework has long rested on a critical assurance to investors: investments made prior to 1 April 2017 would remain outside the scope of GAAR scrutiny. For nearly a decade, this grandfathering protection was widely understood to extend to gains realised on the eventual transfer of such investments, irrespective of when the exit occurred.

Section 115-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act 1961’) states that in addition to the tax payable on the income earned in the hands of a domestic company, an additional income-tax shall be levied upon such company...

Explore key Indian tax rulings on FDI policy amendments for land-border countries, share buyback taxation under section 56(2)(x), tenancy rights in property redevelopment, and transfer pricing safe harbour rules. Discover how recent tribunal decisions impact corporate restructuring, foreign exchange compliance, and depreciation on goodwill from intra-group amalgamations.

The Supreme Court's decision in Authority for Advance Rulings v. Tiger Global International Holdings marks one of the most consequential moments in India's international tax jurisprudence since Vodafone.

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has denied capital gains tax exemption claimed by Tiger Global International II Holdings, Tiger Global International III Holdings and Tiger Global International IV Holdings under the double taxation avoidance agreement between India and Mauritius on sale of shares of Flipkart Private Limited.

The ruling excludes vacation and business development days from service PE calculations and confirms virtual services from abroad don't count, potentially reshaping compliance for multinationals...