Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

The Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) v. Tiger Global International II Holdings & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 60Decided 15 Jan 2026
Civil Appeal Nos. 262-264 of 2026
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

Three Mauritius-incorporated Tiger Global entities held shares in Flipkart (via a Singapore holding company) and sold them in 2018 as part of Walmart's acquisition of Flipkart, earning gains of roughly USD 2.08 billion. When they sought "nil withholding" tax certificates, Indian authorities refused, saying real control lay with a US-based individual, not the Mauritius boards. The AAR rejected their applications as designed for tax avoidance; the Delhi High Court reversed the AAR.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court restored the AAR's finding. Actual control and management rested with a US-based individual, not the Mauritius boards, meaning the companies' real "head and brain" was outside Mauritius. Because the shares sold belonged to a Singapore company, the treaty's capital-gains exemption clause didn't even apply on its own terms, and since the 2018 transaction fell after the 1 April 2017 GAAR cutoff, India's General Anti-Avoidance Rule could override treaty benefits.

Lesson Learnt

Holding a valid Tax Residency Certificate is not, by itself, a guarantee of tax-treaty benefits: authorities can look behind the paperwork at who actually controls a company's decisions, and GAAR lets the taxman override treaty protections for structures designed mainly to avoid tax.

The Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) v. Tiger Global International II Holdings & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware