Cross-Border M&A in India: Legal Hurdles and Taxation Challenges Post-Vodafone Ruling

ABSTRACT

The 2012 judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India[1] triggered a decade-long reconfiguration of India’s cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A) regime. By rejecting the taxability of offshore indirect transfers, the Court initially reinforced certainty for foreign investors. However, Parliament’s retrospective insertion of Explanations 4 and 5 to § 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961[2] disrupted this stability, spawning disputes such as Cairn Energy and provoking arbitral backlash. Subsequently, the 2021 rollback of retrospective application, coupled with the introduction of General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), treaty renegotiations, and FEMA, SEBI, and CCI regulations, reshaped the landscape of cross-border deals[3]. This article explores the legal hurdles and taxation challenges in post-Vodafone cross-border M&A, with emphasis on indirect transfer taxation, GAAR, treaty planning, regulatory interfaces, and sectoral overlays.

INTRODUCTION: VODAFONE AS WATERSHED

The Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India[4], held that offshore share transfers were not taxable in India where Indian assets were only indirectly held[5]. The Court emphasized that § 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961[6], as it then stood, did not encompass such indirect transfers. The judgment reaffirmed corporate separateness and the legitimacy of tax planning, providing a boost to investor confidence[7].

However, the Finance Act, 2012[8] retrospectively amended § 9(1)(i)[9] by inserting Explanations 4 and 5 with effect from 1962, deeming offshore share transfers deriving “substantial value” from Indian assets as taxable in India[10]. This move overturned Vodafone[11], created uncertainty, and triggered disputes like Cairn Energy PLC v. Union of India[12], while simultaneously raising concerns of retrospective taxation violating Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs)[13]. The pendulum swung again in 2021 when the Finance Act, 2021[14] rolled back retrospective application, prospectively reinstating a more stable regime.

This paper examines the legal and taxation challenges in the post-Vodafone regime of cross-border M&A in India, with attention to taxation under the Income-tax Act[15], regulatory hurdles under FEMA, SEBI, and CCI, treaty planning, and evolving global tax standards.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK POST-VODAFONE: INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Indirect Transfer Provisions

The Income-tax Act, 1961[16] deems income to accrue in India if it arises through the transfer of a capital asset situated in India[17]. Explanations 4 and 5[18], inserted by Finance Act, 2012[19], clarified that shares of a foreign company shall be deemed situated in India if they derive “substantial value” (defined under Rule 11UA[20] to be 50% or more[21]) from assets located in India[22].

While Vodafone[23] had rejected such look-through taxation, Parliament’s retrospective amendment reversed the ruling. However, the Finance Act, 2021[24] nullified retrospective demands provided the taxpayer withdrew litigation/arbitration claims[25]. Still, the prospective provisions remain applicable for all offshore share transfers post-2012.

Withholding Obligations

• 195[26] imposes withholding obligations on payments to non-residents. In CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P) Ltd.[27], the Court clarified that failure to deduct tax renders the payer an assessee-in-default. In cross-border deals, buyers now routinely gross-up and escrow amounts to mitigate § 195[28] risks

• GAAR and Anti-Avoidance

 Chapter X-A[29] (§§ 95-102[30]), effective AY 2018-19, empowers tax authorities to deny benefits of “impermissible avoidance arrangements” whose main purpose is tax benefit and which lack commercial substance[31]. CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2017[32] clarifies interplay between GAAR and treaty Limitation of Benefits (LoB) clauses, noting that GAAR may apply even where treaty LoB is satisfied[33].

REGULATORY PILLARS BEYOND TAX

FEMA and Overseas Investment Rules

Cross-border M&A must comply with the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999[34]. The Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Rules and Regulations, 2022[35] (replacing FEMA 120[36]) govern Overseas Direct Investment (ODI) and Portfolio Investment (OPI). These rules restrict round-tripping, impose sectoral caps, and regulate share swaps in inbound and outbound transactions[37]. The RBI’s Master Direction (2022)[38] further prescribes reporting norms and pricing guidelines.

• SEBI SAST Regulations, 2011

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011[39] govern acquisitions of listed companies. Regulation 3[40] triggers a mandatory open offer when an acquirer crosses 25% voting rights, while Regulation 4[41] extends this to “control” acquisitions. Indirect acquisitions, including offshore transactions affecting Indian listed companies, are also covered. In Subhkam Ventures v. SEBI[42], “control” was interpreted broadly, shaping deal structuring strategies[43].

• Competition Act, 2002

Sections 5 and 6[44] mandate CCI notification for combinations exceeding asset/turnover thresholds. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) may prohibit, approve, or modify such combinations if they cause Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC). In CCI v. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd.[45], the SC scrutinized indirect acquisitions in cross-border transactions, highlighting the reach of merger control in M&A[46].

TREATY PLANNING: MAURITIUS, SINGAPORE, AND NETHERLANDS

Historically, India-Mauritius DTAA and India-Singapore DTAA exempted capital gains on shares of Indian companies[47], enabling tax-efficient exits[48]. In Union of India & Anr. v. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr.[49], the Supreme Court upheld treaty shopping through Mauritius SPVs.

However, the 2016 Protocols amended both treaties, granting India source-based taxation rights for shares acquired after April 1, 2017, with grandfathering for earlier investments[50]. The India-Netherlands DTAA, though less used, has attracted holding structures in technology and financing due to relative stability[51]. Yet, GAAR and treaty Principal Purpose Test (PPT) under BEPS MLI now require commercial substance, real offices, employees, and decision-making abroad, to sustain treaty benefits[52].

CASE STUDIES

• Vodafone

The Supreme Court’s ruling shielded offshore transfers from Indian tax pre-2012, but retrospective amendments nullified it. BIT arbitration[53] ultimately favored Vodafone[54], criticizing retrospective taxation as arbitrary.

• Cairn Energy

Retrospective tax demands of ₹10,247 crores were raised under amended § 9(1)(i)[55]. Cairn succeeded in BIT arbitration[56]. Enforcement proceedings abroad pressured India, leading to the Finance Act, 2021[57] rollback.

• Walmart-Flipkart

Walmart’s $16 billion acquisition of Flipkart in 2018 triggered scrutiny under FDI policy, SEBI, and CCI[58]. CCI approved, emphasizing competition impacts in digital markets[59]. While not a tax case, it highlighted the convergence of FEMA, CCI, and SEBI regulations in mega inbound deals.

LEGAL HURDLES IN CROSS-BORDER M&A

Indirect Transfer Taxation

Post-2012, offshore deals require valuation of whether >50% of share value derives from Indian assets under Rule 11UB[60]. Escrow, indemnities, and pre-closing restructuring are now standard to mitigate § 9(1)(i)[61] exposure.

GAAR and Substance

GAAR demands demonstrable commercial substance beyond tax savings. Substance tests include active business operations, employees, and independent decision-making. Failure exposes structures to denial of treaty benefits and tax recharacterization[62].

• FEMA and Share Swaps

The 2022 OI Rules[63] liberalized share swaps but preserved restrictions on round-tripping. RBI approval may still be needed for financial services, multi-tier downstream structures, or transactions with significant debt elements.

1. SEBI SAST Challenges

Open offer triggers at 25% or on “control” acquisition complicate deal timing. Indirect acquisitions of listed subsidiaries in offshore transactions often trigger SEBI obligations, requiring coordination with global timelines[64].

1. CCI Scrutiny and Gun-Jumping

Failure to notify before consummation (“gun-jumping”) attracts penalties under § 43A[65]. Clean teams, standstill obligations, and staged integration are now essential in structuring cross-border deals.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Literature Review

The Vodafone case reshaped India’s cross-border M&A landscape, driving scholarly debate on indirect transfer taxation and regulatory frameworks. Loya, Khan and Desai examined retrospective taxation after Vodafone, noting investment treaty tribunals’ wide powers to restrain tax measures on investments. Amendments to Section 9(1)(i)[66] created uncertainty, with scholars analyzing tribunals’ scrutiny of India’s sovereign taxation powers under bilateral treaties[67].

Literature also covers GAAR’s effect on cross-border structures. Kakkar and Chauhan studied CCI’s evolving merger regime, highlighting its dynamic, business-friendly role in complex transactions[68]. Research shows GAAR compels multinationals to demonstrate commercial substance beyond tax benefits, reflecting global anti-abuse trends and substance-based assessments over formal compliance[69].

Regulatory convergence analysis highlights India’s layered M&A framework. Pathak assessed SEBI’s role in mergers and takeovers, stressing transparency and minority shareholder protections[70]. Khatter further shows cross-border deals face overlapping FEMA, SEBI SAST, and Competition Act provisions, with noted procedural and definitional ambiguities[71].

Research Gap

Despite case law analysis, gaps persist in empirical research on the post-2021 landscape after taxation rollback[72]. Limited focus addresses GAAR’s practical challenges in commercially driven versus tax-motivated structures[73]. Research also neglects the combined impact of RBI, SEBI, and CCI in cross-border transactions, as studies emphasize individual rather than integrated regulatory effects on structuring and compliance[74].

STRUCTURING PATHWAYS POST-VODAFONE

Investors increasingly prefer onshore acquisitions to avoid indirect transfer complexities. Where offshore deals are necessary (e.g., global spin-offs), careful valuation splits and treaty protections are deployed. SPAs include indemnities, gross-up clauses, and WHT mechanics. Listed company deals often combine creeping acquisitions (up to 24.99%) with subsequent open offers to optimize regulatory compliance.

FUTURE TRENDS

India’s alignment with OECD-BEPS, adoption of GAAR, LoB, and PPT clauses, and focus on digital economy taxation will continue to reshape cross-border M&A. Significant Economic Presence (SEP) provisions like § 9(1)(i)’s Explanation 2A[75] may extend nexus for digital assets, complicating valuations in technology deals. Meanwhile, RBI’s OI regime is expected to further liberalize ODI while tightening anti-abuse controls.

CONCLUSION

The Vodafone[76] judgment marked both the promise and peril of cross-border M&A in India: judicial certainty followed by legislative retroactivity. The Finance Act, 2021’s[77] rollback of retrospective taxation restored investor confidence, but indirect transfer rules, GAAR, FEMA, SEBI, and CCI regulations continue to present formidable hurdles. The challenge for dealmakers is to integrate tax diligence, regulatory compliance, and treaty planning at the structuring stage. Ultimately, sustainable cross-border M&A in India demands commercial substance, regulatory foresight, and disciplined documentation, aligning with global anti-abuse trends while preserving India’s attractiveness as an investment destination.

Author:–Rushil Verma,  in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

REFERENCES

Statutes

1. FEMA 120/2004-RB, dated 7-7-2004 [GSR 757(E), Dated 7-7-2004]……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

1. The Competition Act, 2002 (Act 12 of 2003), § 43A……………………. 9

• The Competition Act, 2002 (Act 12 of 2003), §§ 5-6……………………. 6

1. The Finance Act, 2012 (Act 23 of 2012)……………………………………… 3

119. The Finance Act, 2021 (Act 13 of 2021), § 119……………………………. 4

1. The Finance Act, 2021 (Act 13 of 2021)……………………………………… 3

• The Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Rules and Regulations, 2022 (Notification G.S.R. 646(E) [F.NO.27/4/2018 (E)-FT], Dated 22-8-2022)………………………………………………………………. 5

• The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (Act 42 of 1999)…… 5

1. The Income Tax Rules, 1962, r. 11UB………………………………………… 8

195. The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961), § 195……………………… 4

1. The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961), § 9(1)(i)…………………. 2

• The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961), §§ 95-102………………. 4

• The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961), ch. XA…………………… 4

• The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961)……………………………….. 3

1. The Income-Tax Rules, 1962, r. 11UA……………………………………….. 4

• The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (F. LAD-NRO/GN/2011-12/24/30181), r. 3……………………………………………… 5

• The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (F. LAD-NRO/GN/2011-12/24/30181), r. 4……………………………………………… 6

• The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (F. LAD-NRO/GN/2011-12/24/30181)…………………………………………………….. 5

Articles and Other Scholarly Work

1. Aseem Chawla, Roll Back of Retrospective Amendment – Is This Finally Beginning Of A Graceful End To The Infamous Vodafone & Cairn Saga!!, 130 taxmann.com 306 (2021), https://www.taxmann.com/research/income-tax/top-story/105010000000020934/roll-back-of- (last accessed on 31 August 2025)………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

1. Avaantika Kakkar & Vijay Pratap Singh Chauhan, Evolving Character of the Indian Merger Control Regime, Competition Commission of India Journal on Competition Law and Policy 3, 1-19 (2022), https://ccijournal.in/index.php/ccijoclp/article/download/94/51/548 (last accessed on 31 August 2025)……………………………………………… 9

 

• CBDT advises following Instruction No. 7/2017 for rectifying accepted revenue audit objections, Taxmann (2023), https://www.taxmann.com/post/blog/cbdt-advises-following-instruction-no-7-2017-for-rectifying-accepted-revenue-audit-objections/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025)……………………………… 5

 

1. CCI Approves Walmart’s Acquisition of the Outstanding Shares of Flipkart, AZB & Partners (2018), https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/cci-approves-walmarts-acquisition-of-the-outstanding-shares-of-flipkart/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025)…………………………………………………………………………… 8

2007. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Circular No. 7 of 2017 (27 January 2017), Clarifications on implementation of GAAR provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, https://itgoawbunit.org/pdf/229777923Cir%2007.pdf (last accessed on 31 August 2025)………………………………… 5

 

1. Cross-Border Taxation and India’s GAAR: Conflict or Coherence?, Bhatt & Joshi Associates (2025), https://bhattandjoshiassociates.com/cross-border-taxation-and-indias-gaar-conflict-or-coherence/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025)……. 10

• Hiren Shah & Hemant Vaishnav, India-Mauritius treaty benefit available for shares acquired prior to 1 April 2017, Deloitte tax@hand (2024), https://www.taxathand.com/article/36995/India/2024/India-Mauritius-treaty-benefit-available-for-shares-acquired-prior-to-1-April-2017 (last accessed on 31 August 2025)……………………………… 7

• Iram Majid, Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited (CUHL) v. Government of India: A rising and burning need for investor-State mediation in investor-State tax and energy-related disputes, 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 15 (2021), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/03/08/cairn-energy-plc-and-cairn-uk-holdings-limited-cuhl-v-government-of-india-a-rising-and-burning-need-for-investor-state-mediation-in-investor-state-tax-and-energy-related-disputes/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025)……. 3

1. Ishaan Sahai, Navigating The Landscape: Cross-Border Mergers And Acquisitions In India, 2 Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 6 (2024), https://www.ijllr.com/post/navigating-the-landscape-cross-border-mergers-and-acquisitions-in-india (last accessed on 31 August 2025)…………………………………………………………………………………….. 10

1. Jayati Khatter, Impact of SEBI Takeover Regulations 2011 on Corporate M&As, TaxGuru (2025), https://taxguru.in/sebi/impact-sebi-takeover-regulations-2011-corporate-mas.html (last accessed on 31 August 2025)…………………………………………………………………….. 10

1. Kshama A. Loya, Moazzam Khan & Vyapak Desai, Cairn v. India – Investment Treaty Arbitration, Nishith Desai Associates, Dispute Resolution Hotline (2020), https://www.nishithdesai.com/generateHTML/4393/4 (last accessed on 31 August 2025)………………………………………………………………….. 9

• Kunal Gandhi, General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR) in India, International Practice Group (2018), https://www.ipg-online.org/news/item/92/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025)…………. 8

• Mohammed S Chokhawala, Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) Between India and Netherlands, ClearTax (2025), https://cleartax.in/s/india-netherlands-dtaa (last accessed on 31 August 2025)………………………………………………………………………………………. 7

• Mohammed S Chokhawala, Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) Between India and Singapore, ClearTax (2025), https://cleartax.in/s/india-singapore-dtaa (last accessed on 31 August 2025)………………………………………………………………………………………. 6

1. Nandini Surendra Admane, Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions: Challenges under Indian Corporate Law, De Facto Law Journal (2025), https://defactolawjournal.org/papers/cross-border-mergers-and-acquisitions-challenges-under-indian-corporate-law1/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025)…………………………………………………… 10

• PTI, Flipkart deal: FDI violation may merit scrutiny, not in CCI ambit, The Hindu (2018), https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/flipkart-deal-fdi-violation-may-merit-scrutiny-not-in-cci-ambit/article24671699.ece (last accessed on 31 August 2025)……………………………………………… 8

• Rakesh Kedia & Saloni Jain, New Valuation Method Under Rule 11UA, [2023] 157 taxmann.com 409 (2023), https://www.taxmann.com/research/income-tax/top-story/105010000000023540/new-valuation-method-under-rule-11ua-experts-opinion (last accessed on 31 August 2025)………………………. 4

 

• Revised overseas investment guidelines, EY Regulatory Alert (2022), https://www.ey.com/en_in/technical/alerts-hub/2022/08/revised-overseas-investment-guidelines (last accessed on 31 August 2025)… 5

• K. Tulsiyan, Understanding India’s General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) Framework: A Comprehensive Overview, [2024] 168 taxmann.com 87 (2024), https://www.taxmann.com/research/international-tax/top-story/105010000000024724/understanding-indias-general-anti-avoidance-rules-gaar-framework-a-comprehensive-overview-experts-opinion (last accessed on 31 August 2025)………………………………….. 5

1. Sriram, India-Mauritius Treaty – The long awaited overhaul and its underlying consequences, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan (2016), https://www.lakshmisri.com/insights/articles/india-mauritius-treaty-the-long-awaited-overhaul-and-its-underlying-consequences/# (last accessed on 31 August 2025)…………………………………………………….. 6

• Sabeeh Khan, India & Cross-Border Merger and Acquisition, Social Science Research Network (2025), https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5048260 (last accessed on 31 August 2025)…………………………………………………………………………………….. 10

 

• SC Restores Penalty imposed by CCI on Thomas Cook (India) Limited, Thomas Cook Insurance Services (India) Limited and Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Limited, AZB & Partners (2018), https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/sc-restores-penalty-imposed-by-cci-on-thomas-cook-india-limited-thomas-cook-insurance-services-india-limited-and-sterling-holiday-resorts-india-limited/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025)…………………………………………………….. 6

• Sidharth Kumar Pathak, Role of SEBI: Cross Border Merger, Takeover Code, 2 Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law 2 (2022), https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ROLE-OF-SEBI-CROSS-BORDER-MERGER-TAKEOVER-CODE.pdf (last accessed on 31 August 2025)…………………………………………………… 10

• Srikanth Vasudevan et. al., India’s Tax Regulator “Clarifies” Indirect Transfers: Adds to The Morass of Investor Woes, Nishith Desai Associates, Tax Hotline (2016), https://www.nishithdesai.com/generateHTML/9545/4 (last accessed on 31 August 2025)………………………………………………………………….. 3

• Sumit Kochar et. al., Mergers & Acquisitions Comparative Guide, mondaq (2024), https://www.mondaq.com/india/corporatecommercial-law/1458944/mergers-acquisitions-comparative-guide (last accessed on 31 August 2025)………………………………………………………………….. 9

• Swarnendu Chatterjee & Anwesha Pal, Vodafone versus India: A Never-Ending Saga, 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 82 (2022), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/11/29/vodafone-versus-india-a-never-ending-saga/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025)………. 3

 

• The Principal Purpose Test and its Impact on Indian Tax Treaties, dhruva Direct Tax Alert (2025), https://www.dhruvaadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Principal-Purpose-Test-and-its-Impact-on-Indian-Tax-Treaties.pdf (last accessed on 31 August 2025)…………… 7

• Varun Vaish, SEBI Increasingly Investor Friendly in View of Subhkam Ventures (I) (P.) Ltd. v. SEBI and Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. vs. Jayaram Chigurupati Co. Ltd., Social Science Research Network (2012), https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2071242 (last accessed on 31 August 2025)………………………………………………………………………………………. 6

Other Authorities

2022. Reserve Bank of India, Master Directions, 2022………………………….. 5

Judgements

7. Cairn Energy PLC v. Union of India, PCA Case No. 2016-7…………. 3

7. Cairn Energy PLC v. Union of India, PCA Case No. 2016-7…………. 3

• CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P) Ltd., (2009) 15 SCC 1………………. 4

47. Competition Commission Of India v. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., AIROnline 2018 SC 47…………………………………………………………….. 6

1. Subhkam Ventures v. SEBI, Appeal No. 8 of 2009 (The Securities Appellate Tribunal Mumbai, Decided on 15 January 2010)…………… 6

1. Union of India & Anr. v. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr., 2004 (10) SCC 1……………………………………………………………………………………… 6

• Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-35…………………………………………………………………………….. 7

• Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613…………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

[1] Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613.

[2] The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961), § 9(1)(i).

[3] Aseem Chawla, Roll Back of Retrospective Amendment – Is This Finally Beginning Of A Graceful End To The Infamous Vodafone & Cairn Saga!!, 130 taxmann.com 306 (2021), https://www.taxmann.com/research/income-tax/top-story/105010000000020934/roll-back-of- (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[4] Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India. Supra note 1.

[5] Swarnendu Chatterjee & Anwesha Pal, Vodafone versus India: A Never-Ending Saga, 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 82 (2022), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/11/29/vodafone-versus-india-a-never-ending-saga/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[6] The Income-Tax Act, § 9(1)(i). Supra note 2.

[7] Vodafone versus India: A Never-Ending Saga. Supra note 5.

[8] The Finance Act, 2012 (Act 23 of 2012).

[9] The Income-Tax Act, § 9(1)(i). Supra note 2.

[10] Srikanth Vasudevan et. al., India’s Tax Regulator “Clarifies” Indirect Transfers: Adds to The Morass of Investor Woes, Nishith Desai Associates, Tax Hotline (2016), https://www.nishithdesai.com/generateHTML/9545/4 (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[11] Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India. Supra note 1.

[12] Cairn Energy PLC v. Union of India, PCA Case No. 2016-7.

[13] Iram Majid, Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited (CUHL) v. Government of India: A rising and burning need for investor-State mediation in investor-State tax and energy-related disputes, 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 15 (2021), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/03/08/cairn-energy-plc-and-cairn-uk-holdings-limited-cuhl-v-government-of-india-a-rising-and-burning-need-for-investor-state-mediation-in-investor-state-tax-and-energy-related-disputes/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[14] The Finance Act, 2021 (Act 13 of 2021).

[15] The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961).

[16] The Income-Tax Act. Supra note 15.

[17] The Income-Tax Act, § 9(1)(i). Supra note 2.

[18] The Income-Tax Act, § 9(1)(i). Supra note 2.

[19] The Finance Act, 2012. Supra note 8.

[20] The Income-Tax Rules, 1962, r. 11UA.

[21] Rakesh Kedia & Saloni Jain, New Valuation Method Under Rule 11UA, [2023] 157 taxmann.com 409 (2023), https://www.taxmann.com/research/income-tax/top-story/105010000000023540/new-valuation-method-under-rule-11ua-experts-opinion (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[22] Vodafone versus India: A Never-Ending Saga. Supra note 5.

[23] Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India. Supra note 1.

[24] The Finance Act, 2021. Supra note 14.

[25] The Finance Act, 2021 (Act 13 of 2021), § 119.

[26] The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961), § 195.

[27] CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P) Ltd., (2009) 15 SCC 1.

[28] The Income-Tax Act, 1961, § 195. Supra note 26.

[29] The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961), ch. XA.

[30] The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961), §§ 95-102.

[31] S. K. Tulsiyan, Understanding India’s General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) Framework: A Comprehensive Overview, [2024] 168 taxmann.com 87 (2024), https://www.taxmann.com/research/international-tax/top-story/105010000000024724/understanding-indias-general-anti-avoidance-rules-gaar-framework-a-comprehensive-overview-experts-opinion (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[32] Central Board of Direct Taxes, Circular No. 7 of 2017 (27 January 2017), Clarifications on implementation of GAAR provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, https://itgoawbunit.org/pdf/229777923Cir%2007.pdf (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[33] CBDT advises following Instruction No. 7/2017 for rectifying accepted revenue audit objections, Taxmann (2023), https://www.taxmann.com/post/blog/cbdt-advises-following-instruction-no-7-2017-for-rectifying-accepted-revenue-audit-objections/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[34] The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (Act 42 of 1999).

[35] The Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Rules and Regulations, 2022 (Notification G.S.R. 646(E) [F.NO.27/4/2018 (E)-FT], Dated 22-8-2022).

[36] FEMA 120/2004-RB, dated 7-7-2004 [GSR 757(E), Dated 7-7-2004].

[37] Revised overseas investment guidelines, EY Regulatory Alert (2022), https://www.ey.com/en_in/technical/alerts-hub/2022/08/revised-overseas-investment-guidelines (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[38] Reserve Bank of India, Master Directions, 2022.

[39] The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (F.  No. LAD-NRO/GN/2011-12/24/30181).

[40] The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (F.  No. LAD-NRO/GN/2011-12/24/30181), r. 3.

[41] The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (F.  No. LAD-NRO/GN/2011-12/24/30181), r. 4.

[42] Subhkam Ventures v. SEBI, Appeal No. 8 of 2009 (The Securities Appellate Tribunal Mumbai, Decided on 15 January 2010).

[43] Varun Vaish, SEBI Increasingly Investor Friendly in View of Subhkam Ventures (I) (P.) Ltd. v. SEBI and Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. vs. Jayaram Chigurupati Co. Ltd., Social Science Research Network (2012), https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2071242 (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[44] The Competition Act, 2002 (Act 12 of 2003), §§ 5-6.

[45] Competition Commission Of India v. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., AIROnline 2018 SC 47.

[46] SC Restores Penalty imposed by CCI on Thomas Cook (India) Limited, Thomas Cook Insurance Services (India) Limited and Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Limited, AZB & Partners (2018), https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/sc-restores-penalty-imposed-by-cci-on-thomas-cook-india-limited-thomas-cook-insurance-services-india-limited-and-sterling-holiday-resorts-india-limited/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[47] S. Sriram, India-Mauritius Treaty – The long awaited overhaul and its underlying consequences, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan (2016), https://www.lakshmisri.com/insights/articles/india-mauritius-treaty-the-long-awaited-overhaul-and-its-underlying-consequences/# (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[48] Mohammed S Chokhawala, Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) Between India and Singapore, ClearTax (2025), https://cleartax.in/s/india-singapore-dtaa (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[49] Union of India & Anr. v. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr., 2004 (10) SCC 1.

[50] Hiren Shah & Hemant Vaishnav, India-Mauritius treaty benefit available for shares acquired prior to 1 April 2017, Deloitte tax@hand (2024), https://www.taxathand.com/article/36995/India/2024/India-Mauritius-treaty-benefit-available-for-shares-acquired-prior-to-1-April-2017 (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[51] Mohammed S Chokhawala, Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) Between India and Netherlands, ClearTax (2025), https://cleartax.in/s/india-netherlands-dtaa (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[52] The Principal Purpose Test and its Impact on Indian Tax Treaties, dhruva Direct Tax Alert (2025), https://www.dhruvaadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Principal-Purpose-Test-and-its-Impact-on-Indian-Tax-Treaties.pdf (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[53] Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-35.

[54] Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India. Supra note 1.

[55] The Income-Tax Act, § 9(1)(i). Supra note 2.

[56] Cairn Energy PLC v. Union of India. Supra note 12.

[57] The Finance Act, 2021. Supra note 14.

[58] PTI, Flipkart deal: FDI violation may merit scrutiny, not in CCI ambit, The Hindu (2018), https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/flipkart-deal-fdi-violation-may-merit-scrutiny-not-in-cci-ambit/article24671699.ece (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[59] CCI Approves Walmart’s Acquisition of the Outstanding Shares of Flipkart, AZB & Partners (2018), https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/cci-approves-walmarts-acquisition-of-the-outstanding-shares-of-flipkart/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[60] The Income Tax Rules, 1962, r. 11UB.

[61] The Income-Tax Act, § 9(1)(i). Supra note 2.

[62] Kunal Gandhi, General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR) in India, International Practice Group (2018), https://www.ipg-online.org/news/item/92/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[63] The Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Rules and Regulations, 2022. Supra note 35.

[64] Sumit Kochar et. al., Mergers & Acquisitions Comparative Guide, mondaq (2024), https://www.mondaq.com/india/corporatecommercial-law/1458944/mergers-acquisitions-comparative-guide (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[65] The Competition Act, 2002 (Act 12 of 2003), § 43A.

[66] The Income-Tax Act, § 9(1)(i). Supra note 2.

[67] Kshama A. Loya, Moazzam Khan & Vyapak Desai, Cairn v. India – Investment Treaty Arbitration, Nishith Desai Associates, Dispute Resolution Hotline (2020), https://www.nishithdesai.com/generateHTML/4393/4 (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[68] Avaantika Kakkar & Vijay Pratap Singh Chauhan, Evolving Character of the Indian Merger Control Regime, Competition Commission of India Journal on Competition Law and Policy 3, 1-19 (2022), https://ccijournal.in/index.php/ccijoclp/article/download/94/51/548 (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[69] Cross-Border Taxation and India’s GAAR: Conflict or Coherence?, Bhatt & Joshi Associates (2025), https://bhattandjoshiassociates.com/cross-border-taxation-and-indias-gaar-conflict-or-coherence/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[70] Sidharth Kumar Pathak, Role of SEBI: Cross Border Merger, Takeover Code, 2 Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law 2 (2022), https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ROLE-OF-SEBI-CROSS-BORDER-MERGER-TAKEOVER-CODE.pdf (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[71] Jayati Khatter, Impact of SEBI Takeover Regulations 2011 on Corporate M&As, TaxGuru (2025), https://taxguru.in/sebi/impact-sebi-takeover-regulations-2011-corporate-mas.html (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[72] Nandini Surendra Admane, Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions: Challenges under Indian Corporate Law, De Facto Law Journal (2025), https://defactolawjournal.org/papers/cross-border-mergers-and-acquisitions-challenges-under-indian-corporate-law1/ (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[73] Sabeeh Khan, India & Cross-Border Merger and Acquisition, Social Science Research Network (2025), https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5048260 (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[74] Ishaan Sahai, Navigating The Landscape: Cross-Border Mergers And Acquisitions In India, 2 Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 6 (2024), https://www.ijllr.com/post/navigating-the-landscape-cross-border-mergers-and-acquisitions-in-india (last accessed on 31 August 2025).

[75] The Income-Tax Act, § 9(1)(i). Supra note 2.

[76] Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India. Supra note 1.

[77] The Finance Act, 2021. Supra note 14.