The Supreme Court's ruling in the Tiger Global case clarifies that while a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) is necessary to claim benefits under tax treaties, it's not sufficient on its own. Tax authorities can now scrutinise transactions to assess genuine business substance and intent, looking beyond just documentation. This decision could impact past and future foreign investments routed through treaty countries, emphasising the need for real economic substance rather than just formal compliance.
Why the Tiger Global case matters?
The Tiger Global case has become important not just because of the amount involved, but because of the principle it reinforces.
In 2018, Tiger Global sold its stake in Flipkart and claimed capital gains tax exemption under the India-Mauritius tax treaty, relying
Daily Limit Reached
You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Articles
Subscribe to
CCI PRO
for unlimited access
Why Upgrade to
CCI PRO?
-
No Ads
-
WhatsApp Broadcasts
-
Daily E-Newsletter
-
Unlimited Articles Access
BEST VALUE
2 YEAR PLAN
3,499
(Inclusive of GST)
1 YEAR PLAN
1,999
(Inclusive of GST)
Buy CCI PRO Now
Already a PRO member?
Login here
for an ad-free experience.
FAQ :
Tiger Global claimed capital gains tax exemption under the India-Mauritius tax treaty based on a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) after selling its stake in Flipkart.
The Supreme Court clarified that a TRC is mandatory but does not prevent tax authorities from examining the transaction's substance, control, and tax avoidance intent.
The ruling highlights that foreign investments routed through countries like Mauritius or Singapore may face scrutiny if they lack genuine business substance, even for past transactions.
Not necessarily, but it introduces greater uncertainty, particularly for large exits and cases where refunds are pending, as substance will be a key factor.
The key takeaway is that treaty benefits now depend not only on having the correct documents like a TRC but also on demonstrating real business substance and genuine intent.