As many are aware, in the headline-making Vodafone International Holdings Ltd v. Union of India (2012), the Supreme Court of India, ruling in favor of the taxpayer, held that Section 9(1)(i) of the Indian Income Tax Act did not cover an indirect stock transfer (i.e., Vodafone's purchase of the shares of a Cayman company that indirectly owned an Indian company with assets located in India), contra...
To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In



