- Under Indian tax law, transfer of shares in a foreign company can trigger Indian capital gains tax if the shares derive substantial value from assets located in India.
- A foreign company's shares are deemed to derive substantial value from India if, on the specified date, the value of the underlying Indian company's shares exceeds INR 10 crore (approximately USD 1.2 million).
- The Indian-asset value must also represent at least 50% of the foreign company's total asset value for the indirect transfer provisions to apply.
- Shareholders holding 5% or less of the foreign company's shares, whether directly or indirectly, are exempt from these indirect transfer tax provisions.
- Category I Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) are also exempt from the indirect transfer tax rules.
- The Vodafone case, involving its acquisition of Hutchison's stake in a Cayman Islands company with substantial Indian assets, is the landmark dispute that brought indirect transfer taxation into focus.
- The Supreme Court of India ruled in favour of Vodafone in 2012, holding that the transaction was not taxable under the then-existing provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the Indian government introduced a retrospective amendment to the Income Tax Act, 1961, allowing taxation of indirect transfers and effectively overturning the judgment.
- The retrospective amendment led to prolonged legal disputes and remains a key reference point for structuring cross-border transactions involving Indian assets.
Did you know that transfers of shares in a foreign company can be taxable in India if they derive substantial value from Indian assets? Here’s how:
Tax Event:
Shares of a foreign company are deemed to derive its value substantially from India, if on the specified date, the value of shares of Indian company:
– exceeds INR 10 crore (approx. USD 1.2mn); and
– represent at least 50% of the foreign company’s asset value
Key Exemptions
– Small Shareholders: Shareholders holding 5% or less, directly or indirectly
– Category I FPIs
Background
The landmark Vodafone case brought this issue to the forefront. This case involved Vodafone’s acquisition of Hutchison’s stake in a Cayman Islands company, indirectly owning substantial assets in India. The Indian tax authorities claimed tax on the transaction, arguing that the transfer derived significant value from Indian assets. Vodafone contended that the transaction was not taxable under existing laws. The Supreme Court of India ruled in Vodafone’s favor in 2012. However, in response, the Indian government introduced a retrospective amendment to the Income Tax Act, 1961 allowing taxation of such indirect transfers, thereby overturning the Supreme Court’s decision and leading to prolonged legal disputes.
We Are Problem Solvers. And Take Accountability.
Related Posts
Data Fiduciary vs Data Processor: Redrafting Your B2B Vendor DPAs Under the DPDP Act 2023
Most Indian B2B contracts signed before 2024 were not written with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 in mind....
Learn More
Who Owns the Prompt? Modifying Employee IP Assignment Clauses for the GenAI Era
Most Indian employment agreements assign to the employer everything an employee creates, develops, or invents during employment. That clause was...
Learn More
The AI Indemnity Trap: Negotiating Liability When Third-Party Algorithms Hallucinate
Every founder who has embedded a third-party AI model into their product has read an indemnity clause that sounds reassuring....
Learn More© 2026 Treelife Ventures Services Private Limited. All Rights Reserved.

