In a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for international investment and tax law, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a powerful verdict that reasserts the nation’s right to tax income generated within its economic sphere, even when cloaked in complex cross-border structures. The judgment in The Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) & Ors. vs. Tiger Global International II Holdings & Ors. marks a significant pivot from a permissive approach to treaty benefits towards a more rigorous, substance-over-form analysis, placing India’s sovereign taxing power at the forefront.
I. The Core of the Controversy: A Singapore
Flipkart, A Mauritian Shell, and an American Hand
At its heart, the case involved a
classic structure of indirect investment. Three Mauritius-based investment
vehicles—Tiger Global International II, III, and IV Holdings—held shares in
Flipkart Private Limited, a company incorporated in Singapore. This Singapore
entity, in turn, derived substantial value from its operations and assets in
India. In 2018, the Tiger Global entities sold their Flipkart Singapore shares
to a Luxembourg-based buyer as part of Walmart’s acquisition of Flipkart.
The Mauritian companies, holding
valid Tax Residency Certificates (TRCs) from Mauritius, claimed exemption from
Indian capital gains tax. Their shield was Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius
Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), which, at the time, stated that
capital gains from the alienation of property were taxable only in the resident
state (Mauritius). Given Mauritius did not tax such capital gains, this would
result in double non-taxation.
The Indian Revenue authorities
saw not a legitimate investment but a "prima facie" tax avoidance
arrangement. They argued the real "head and brain" controlling these
entities was not in Mauritius but with Mr. Charles P. Coleman in the USA, and
the entire setup was a conduit to exploit the treaty. The companies approached
the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) for clarity, but the AAR refused to
rule on the merits, dismissing their applications at the threshold. It held the
transaction was prima facie designed for tax avoidance, invoking a
jurisdictional bar under the Income Tax Act.
The Delhi High Court overturned
the AAR, protecting the investors. It emphasized the sanctity of the TRC, the
commercial substance of the Mauritian entities, and the principle of
grandfathering for pre-2017 investments. The Revenue’s appeal to the Supreme
Court set the stage for a definitive clash between treaty protection and the
state’s right to prevent abuse.
II. The Supreme Court’s Analysis: A
Multi-Layered Legal Dissection
The Supreme Court’s majority judgment, authored by Justice R. Mahadevan, is a masterclass in navigating the intricate interplay between domestic tax law, international treaties, and anti-avoidance principles. The Court systematically dismantled the assumption that treaty benefits are automatic, establishing a rigorous new test.
A. The Primacy of Domestic Law and the
"Substance" Enquiry
The Court began by reaffirming a
foundational principle: the power to levy tax is a sovereign function,
circumscribed only by law (Article 265 of the Constitution). A DTAA does not
constitute a surrender of this power; it is an agreement on allocating taxing
rights between two sovereigns. Critically, the Court held that the source
country (India, where the economic value was created) retains the authority to
examine transactions for abuse and lack of commercial substance.
The judgment signalled a decisive
shift away from a formalistic reliance on documents like the TRC. It held that
post the 2012 statutory amendments—particularly the introduction of the General
Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) and changes to Section 90—a TRC is a necessary but
not sufficient condition for claiming treaty benefits. The Revenue is entitled,
and indeed duty-bound, to look behind the certificate to examine the reality of
control, management, and commercial substance.
B. Piercing the Veil: Control, Management, and
Commercial Substance
The Court found the AAR’s prima
facie findings of external control compelling. Evidence showed that authority
over significant financial decisions and bank account operations rested with
individuals outside Mauritius. The Mauritian boards, while existing on paper,
appeared to lack real autonomy. The entities had made no investments other than
in Flipkart Singapore, leading the Court to infer that their primary purpose
was to hold this single asset and claim treaty benefits.
This aligned with the
"substance over form" doctrine long embedded in Indian jurisprudence
(from McDowell to Vodafone) and now codified in GAAR. The Court reiterated that
legal structures can be disregarded when they are artificial, colourable
devices or shams intended solely for tax avoidance.
C. The Treaty Interpretation: Article 13 and
the Grandfathering Mirage
A key contention was the
applicability of the "grandfathering" protection. A 2016 protocol to
the India-Mauritius DTAA had changed the rule: for shares acquired on or after
April 1, 2017, capital gains would be taxable in India (the source state).
However, shares acquired before this date were "grandfathered," i.e.,
protected under the old rule (taxable only in Mauritius).
The Tiger Global entities argued their shares were acquired before 2017 and thus fully grandfathered. The Supreme Court, however, introduced a crucial distinction. It differentiated between the investment (the shares acquired pre-2017) and the arrangement (the overall structure designed to sell those shares).
Rule 10U(2) of the Income Tax
Rules states that GAAR applies to any arrangement obtaining a tax benefit on or
after April 1, 2017, irrespective of when it was entered into. The Court
reasoned that while the investment was old, the tax benefit (the exempt gain)
was obtained upon the sale in 2018. Therefore, the arrangement leading to this
2018 benefit was subject to GAAR scrutiny, and the grandfathering shield under
Rule 10U(1)(d) was not absolute.
Furthermore, the Court noted that
the DTAA’ Article 13(3A) & 13(3B)—which contain the new source-based
taxation and grandfathering—apply specifically to shares of a company resident
in India. The Tiger Global entities sold shares of a Singapore company. Their
transaction, therefore, fell under the residuary Article 13(4). The Court
implied that the grandfathering protection in the protocol was not intended for
such multi-layered indirect transfers.
D. The Death Knell for "Treaty Shopping"
as We Knew It
The judgment effectively curtails
the practice of "treaty shopping"—where residents of a third country
route investments through a treaty-friendly jurisdiction like Mauritius to
claim benefits not intended for them. The Court acknowledged that while Azadi
Bachao Andolan (2003) had tolerated treaty shopping to attract foreign capital,
the legal and economic landscape has transformed.
With India now a premier
investment destination and with robust anti-abuse laws (GAAR) and treaty provisions
(Limitation of Benefits clauses) in place, the Court asserted that the
sovereign’s interest in protecting its tax base must prevail. Circulars like
CBDT Circular No. 789 (which gave TRCs considerable weight) were deemed
overtaken by subsequent statutory amendments. The state’ right to scrutinize
and deny treaty benefits in cases of abuse is now unequivocal.
III. The Concurring Opinion: A Philosophical
Defence of Tax Sovereignty
Justice J.B. Pardiwala’s
concurring opinion elevates the discussion from the specifics of the case to a
grand philosophical plane: the imperative of tax sovereignty in the 21st
century. In a world of geo-economic uncertainty, he argues, a nation’s strength
is linked to its economic independence. Tax sovereignty is a core component of
this.
Justice Pardiwala warns against
compromising this sovereignty through long-term, rigid treaties that may not
serve the nation’s evolving interests. He advocates for:
a. Retention, not yielding:
Tax sovereignty should be the golden rule, with compromises being rare,
short-term, and clearly in the national interest.
b. Source-based taxation as a
default right: The nation where economic value is created has a primary
right to tax it. Any arrangement that severs this link warrants scrutiny.
c. Dynamic treaty
interpretation: Treaties must be interpreted in a contemporary context,
aligned with current economic realities and domestic laws, not frozen in the
past.
d. Safeguards in
treaty-making: He lists essential safeguards India must embed in future
treaties, including robust LOB and GAAR override clauses, rights to tax the
digital economy, clear definitions, and easy exit/renegotiation clauses.
His opinion is a clarion call for
India to proactively shape global tax norms, lead coalitions of developing
nations, and use its growing economic clout to ensure its sovereign tax rights
are never diluted.
IV. The Impact and The Road Ahead
The Tiger Global judgment is a
watershed moment with multi-dimensional impact:
1.For Foreign Investors:
The era of passive reliance on treaty certificates is over. Investors must
ensure that intermediary entities in treaty jurisdictions have real commercial
substance, genuine management, and control, and a business purpose beyond tax
efficiency. Structures that are perceived as mere conduits will be vulnerable.
2.For the Indian Revenue:
The judgment arms tax authorities with robust legal backing to challenge
complex cross-border transactions. The threshold for invoking the "prima
facie" tax avoidance bar under Section 245R(2) has been clarified,
allowing the AAR to dismiss speculative or abusive applications early.
3.For International Tax Law:
India has firmly positioned itself alongside OECD nations in prioritizing
economic substance and combating Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). The
judgment aligns with Principle 2 (Neutrality) and Principle 7 (Avoiding Double
Non-Taxation) of the OECD’s International VAT/GST Guidelines spirit.
4.For Treaty Negotiations:
Future treaties and renegotiations will undoubtedly be influenced by this
strong judicial affirmation of source-country rights and anti-abuse measures.
India’s bargaining position is significantly strengthened.
Conclusion: A New Equilibrium
The Supreme Court has not closed
the door on foreign investment. Instead, it has replaced an old, potentially
abuse-prone doorway with a more transparent and substantive gateway. The
message is clear: India welcomes foreign capital that participates genuinely in
its economic growth, but it will not subsidize that growth by forgoing its
legitimate tax revenue on income generated from its own soil and market.
The judgment establishes a new
equilibrium where treaty protection is a privilege earned through commercial
reality, not a right obtained through legal formalism. It reaffirms that in the
delicate balance between attracting investment and asserting fiscal
sovereignty, the latter is non-negotiable. This ruling will undoubtedly shape
cross-border M&A, private equity exits, and tax planning for decades to
come, marking India’s mature transition in the global fiscal order.
Judgment Name: The
Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) & Ors. vs. Tiger Global
International II Holdings & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 262-264 of 2026,
Supreme Court of India, decided on January 15, 2026).
0 Comments