Section 9(1)(i), the Act – Transfer of shares of Jersey company holding shares in Indian company by UK company to another group company was indirect transfer of asset; capital gain arising from such transfer was subject to tax in India
FACTS
The Taxpayer was a tax resident of UK. The Holding Company (Hold Co) of the Taxpayer was acquiring oil and gas assets in India through its subsidiaries. Following is the diagrammatic presentation of the original holding structure.
With a view to simplify the group structure, for better and effective local management and to access capital market, the group effectuated internal reorganisation in a series of transactions in which the Taxpayer was a party.
Briefly, the reorganisation comprised the following transactions.
– Hold Co entered into share exchange agreement with the Taxpayer and transferred its entire shareholding in nine wholly owned Indian subsidiary companies to the Taxpayer in exchange of issue of shares by the Taxpayer to Hold Co. No capital gain tax was paid on this transaction1.
– The Taxpayer setup a subsidiary in Jersey (Jersey Co). The Taxpayer entered into share exchange agreement with Jersey Co and transferred its entire shareholding in nine wholly owned Indian subsidiary companies to Jersey Co in exchange of issue of shares by Jersey Co. Jersey Co derived substantial value from assets located in India.
– Subsequently, the Taxpayer formed another subsidiary in India (I Co). The Taxpayer infused purchased certain shares if I Co for cash consideration. Thereafter, the Taxpayer transferred its entire shareholding in Jersey Co to I Co. I Co paid the consideration partly in cash and partly by issue of shares of I Co. I Co recorded the excess amount over the book value of shares of Jersey Co as goodwill.
– Subsequently, I Co issued shares by way of IPO of its shares. Post-IPO, the shareholding in I Co was: UK Co ~69% (including ~20% subscribed in cash and ~49% received in exchange of shares of Jersey Co) and public ~31%.
Following is the diagrammatic presentation of the post-reorganisation holding structure.
The AO treated transfer of shares of Jersey Co by the Taxpayer to I Co as indirect transfer of assets in India u/s. 9(1)(i) of the Act and accordingly, assessed capital gains tax in the hands of the Taxpayer.
In appeal before the Tribunal2, the Taxpayer contended as follows.
– The taxability of the transaction under the indirect transfer provisions should be denied, as the said retroactive amendment is bad in law and ultra vires.
– The Transactions undertaken by the Taxpayer were for internal reorganisation with a view to consolidate Indian business operations. Such internal reorganisation did not result in any change in controlling interest. Hence, such transaction was non-taxable.
– The Taxpayer relied on Calcutta HC decision in the case of Kusum products Limited3 to suggest that: post-internal reorganisation no real income accrued to the Taxpayer as all Indian assets were available in different form; and mere accounting entry cannot be regarded as income, unless real income was actually earned.
– For the purpose of computing capital gain, the cost of acquisition should be stepped up to the fair value of the shares of Jersey Co on the date of acquisition. Further, there was no timing difference between the acquisition and disposal of shares by the Taxpayer, and accordingly the full value of consideration and the cost of acquisition were same.
– The Taxpayer also relied on Delhi HC decision in New Skies Satellite and contended that the provisions of the Act as were in existence on the date of notification of India-UK DTAA were to be considered and retroactive amendment in relation to indirect transfer provisions was to be ignored.
HELD
On transfer of shares of Jersey Co to I Co
– Validity of retrospective amendment
On the contention of non-applicability of indirect transfer provisions, due to the same being retrospective in nature and ultra vires, the Tribunal concluded that it is not the right forum to challenge validity of provisions of the Act.
– No change in controlling interest due to internal reorganisation
The steps undertaken were not mere business reorganisation. It was a fact that the series of transactions culminated into the IPO of I Co from which the funds were used to pay part consideration to the Taxpayer for acquisition of shares of Jersey Co.
– Property being situated in India
The Indian WOS, which controls the oil and gas sector in India, will be regarded as the property in which the shareholders have the right to manage and control the business in India. Therefore, any income arising through or from‘ any property in India shall be chargeable to tax as income deemed to accrue or arise in India in terms of the indirect transfer provisions of the Act.
– No real income accruing in the hands of Taxpayer
The audited financial statements of the Taxpayer discussed about disposal of part of the company’s investment and resultant exceptional gains earned upon disposal of shares. Hence, the Taxpayer was not justified in arguing that no real income had accrued.
– While computing capital gains, cost of acquisition should be stepped up to fair value of Jersey Co.
Perusal of the provisions of the Act show that the property held by the Taxpayer (i.e., shares of Jersey Co) and its mode of acquisition did not fall under any of the clauses of the Act which required substitution of cost of acquisition in the hands of the previous owner4.
The Tribunal also denied the Taxpayer’s contention on transaction being in the nature of swap and leading to resultant step up in cost of acquisition by stating that in the present case, the price of the shares in each of the agreement is identified and the amount of acquisition recorded in the books of account represents cost of acquisition of share which cannot be substituted by
fair value.
– Whether ITL provisions at the time when India-UK DTAA was signed is to be considered
The Tribunal disregarded the argument of the taxpayer and held that:
• As per the India-UK DTAA, capital gains are taxable as per the domestic law of respective countries. Hence, the provisions in DTAA cannot make the domestic law static when both states have left it to domestic law for taxation of any particular income.
• Where exemption is provided with retroactive effect under domestic law, non-resident cannot be denied exemption by citing that such law was not in existence at the time DTAA was entered into.
• DTAA is a mechanism of avoiding multiplicity of taxation globally. If taxes are chargeable in residence state (i.e. UK), the taxpayer should not suffer tax in the source state. The facts indicated that capital gains were not taxable in the residence state. Accordingly, there was no multiplicity of tax being levied.
• Distinguished the Taxpayer’s reliance on Delhi HC ruling in the case of New Skies Satellite5 which held that amendments made under domestic law cannot be applied to relevant DTAAs.
• Where the provisions of DTAA simply provide that particular income would be chargeable to tax in accordance with the provisions of domestic laws, such article in DTAA cannot limit the boundaries of domestic tax laws.
On levy of interest
The Tribunal relied upon various judicial precedents6 and agreed with the Taxpayer’s claim that it could not have visualised its liability for payment of advance tax in the year of transaction. Consequently, interest on tax liability arising out of retrospective amendment cannot be levied7. The Taxpayer was also subject to withholding tax. However, based on the SC ruling in the case of Ian Peter Morris vs. ACIT8 and Delhi HC ruling the case of DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Incorporation9, which held that a non-resident cannot be burdened with interest for default of withholding compliance and the fact that liability arises out of a retrospective amendment which could not be foreseen, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the Taxpayer.
