India's Top Court rules Tiger Global Liable to pay Capital gains Taxes for #Flipkart sales

• ₹15,000 cr. capital gains tax demand likely on Tiger Global for sale of shares in Flipkart after Supreme Court ruling
• Tiger Global claimed that it is exempted from Indian capital gains tax under the "grandfathering" clause of the India-Mauritius DTAA, since it had acquired the shares before April 1, 2017.

In a major legal shift, the Supreme Court of India ruled on January 15, 2026, that Tiger Global is liable to pay capital gains tax on its 2018 exit from Flipkart. This landmark judgment overturned a previous Delhi High Court ruling and has significant implications for how foreign investments are structured in India.  

The Supreme Court upheld the Indian revenue authorities' refusal to entertain Tiger Global's advance ruling applications in the case of Authority of Advanced Ruling v. Tiger Global.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that if a transaction is prima facie designed for tax avoidance, the tax authorities are not required to examine the merits of taxability.

This decision relies on the statutory bar under the proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Core Dispute

The case originated from Walmart’s $16 billion acquisition of Flipkart in 2018. Tiger Global, a US-based investment firm, sold its stake (worth roughly $1.6 billion) through several Mauritius-based entities.  

Tiger Global's Argument: They claimed tax exemption under the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). They argued that because their investments were made before April 1, 2017, they were protected by "grandfathering" clauses.  

Tax Department's Argument: Authorities contended that the Mauritius entities were merely "conduits" or "shell companies" with no real commercial substance. They argued the "head and brain" of the operation was in the US, and the structure was designed solely for impermissible tax avoidance.  

The Supreme Court Ruling (January 2026)

A bench consisting of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled in favor of the Income Tax Department, establishing several key legal precedents:  

Substance Over Form: The Court held that the transaction was an "impermissible tax avoidance arrangement." It emphasized that the real purpose and control of the entities matter more than where they are registered.  

TRC is Not a "Blank Check": The court clarified that holding a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) from Mauritius is not sufficient to claim treaty benefits if the entity is found to be a conduit for tax avoidance.  

GAAR Applicability: The ruling invoked the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), stating that tax authorities have the right to look through complex offshore structures to determine the actual beneficiary.  

Tax Liability: Tiger Global is now reportedly facing a tax demand of approximately ₹14,500 crore to ₹15,000 crore (roughly $1.7 billion–$1.8 billion), including potential interest and penalties.  

Why This Matters

This case is considered a "watershed moment" for international taxation in India because:

Venture Capital Impact: Other major firms (like Peak XV, Accel, and Blume) that use Mauritius or Singapore structures may face increased scrutiny.

End of "Treaty Shopping": It signals that India will no longer tolerate structures that use tax-haven jurisdictions without genuine business operations (economic substance) in those locations.  

Retroactive Scrutiny: Even "grandfathered" investments (pre-2017) can now be challenged if the underlying structure is deemed a sham. 

To understand the Tiger Global ruling, it is essential to look at the two legal "pillars" that were at the heart of the argument: the Grandfathering Clause (which Tiger Global relied on) and GAAR (which the Tax Department used to override it).

1. The Grandfathering Clause

The India-Mauritius tax treaty was amended in 2016 to stop "tax-free" exits. However, to protect existing investors, a Grandfathering Clause was introduced.

The Rule: Any shares of an Indian company acquired before April 1, 2017, are protected. When these shares are sold (regardless of the year of sale), the capital gains tax is determined by the old treaty rules—meaning the tax is paid in Mauritius (which is 0%) and not in India.

Tiger Global’s Position: Since they invested in Flipkart before 2017, they argued they had a "vested right" to this exemption.

2. General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR)

Introduced in India on April 1, 2017, GAAR gives the Income Tax Department the power to "look through" a legal structure and tax it based on its real economic substance.

An arrangement is flagged as an Impermissible Avoidance Arrangement (IAA) if its main purpose is to get a tax benefit and it meets any of these "tainted element" tests:

Lacks Commercial Substance: The entity (like a Mauritius shell company) has no real employees, office, or decision-making power.

Abuse of Law: It uses the treaty in a way that wasn't intended (Treaty Shopping).

Arm's Length: It creates rights/obligations that wouldn't exist between independent parties.

The "Conflict" in the Tiger Global Case

The 2026 Supreme Court ruling effectively decided which of these two rules is stronger. 

Key Takeaway: The Court ruled that Anti-Avoidance (GAAR) overrides Treaty benefits. If a structure is found to be a "sham" designed only to save tax, the Grandfathering protection will be denied.

Impact on Future Investments

Investors can no longer rely solely on a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC). To be safe under Indian law now, an offshore fund must show "Economic Substance" in the country where it is registered, such as:

Local Directors: Who actually make investment decisions (not just rubber-stamping US orders).

Local Office & Employees: A physical presence with operational costs.

Commercial Purpose: A reason for being in that country other than just the 0% tax rate.

Tiger Global was represented by Senior Advocates Porus Kaka and Harish Salve.

The revenue was represented by Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman.

The Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) #judgement on #maintenance

The landmark Supreme Court case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (2020) is the most significant judgment regarding maintenance in India. It was delivered to streamline the process, prevent delays, and ensure transparency in matrimonial disputes across all laws (HMA, CrPC/BNSS, DV Act, etc.).
Below is a summary of the key mandates and how they affect interim maintenance:
1. Mandatory Disclosure of Assets (The "Affidavit")
The most critical takeaway is that both parties must file an "Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities."
Transparency: Since husbands often conceal income and wives may exaggerate needs, this affidavit requires detailing all bank accounts, properties, investments, and expenses.
Timeline: The applicant (usually the wife) must file it with the maintenance application. The respondent (husband) must file his reply and affidavit within 4 weeks.
Consequences: If a party lies or hides assets, the court can strike off their defense or initiate perjury proceedings.
2. Date of Award
Before this judgment, courts often awarded maintenance from the date of the "order," which meant wives suffered during long trials.
The Rule: Maintenance must now be awarded from the date of the application, not the date of the court's decision. This ensures the applicant is supported during the pendency of the case.
3. Issue of "Overlapping Jurisdiction"
Often, a spouse files for maintenance under multiple laws (e.g., Section 125 CrPC and the DV Act).
Disclosure: The applicant must disclose if they are already receiving maintenance from a previous case.
Adjustment: While you can file under multiple laws, the court will adjust or set off the amount. You cannot "double-dip" to get full amounts from two different courts for the same purpose.
4. Quantum (How much?)
The court ruled there is no "straitjacket formula," but the following factors must be balanced:
The standard of living the wife enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
The age and employment status of the parties.
The educational expenses of the children.
Whether the wife is "capable" of earning vs. whether she is actually earning.
5. Timely Disposal
The Supreme Court directed that interim maintenance applications should ideally be decided within 4 to 6 months after the affidavits are filed.
How this helps you:
If you are currently in a maintenance dispute, ensuring that the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities (Annexure I, II, or III of the judgment) is correctly filed is the first step.
This judgment provides a comprehensive framework for all maintenance cases in India, not just the specifics of the Rajnesh vs. Neha case.

Heritage and development shall go together : #Culture & #Tourism Min. Govt of India

Heritage and development shall go together said Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, Minister of Culture & Tourism, Govt of India at the 243rd Foundation Day of The Asiatic Society in Kolkata today.

"The Asiatic Society has played a historic role in documenting, preserving, and interpreting this continuity. Its manuscripts, journals, and collections are not relics of the past; they are maps of the human mind across centuries. Institutions like Asiatic Society matters today because in this is an age of rapid change Institutions like them perform a quiet but vital function. They slow us down. They insist on depth over immediacy. They privilege understanding over opinion. They remind us that civilizations endure not because they are loud, but because they are thoughtful. The Asiatic Society has endured because it has never chased relevance, " he added.

Founded in 1784, the Asiatic Society holds over 50,000 manuscripts.It has launched two new heritage-technology platforms, "ANUKRITI" and "VIDHVANIKA", developed in collaboration with IIT Kharagpur and C-DAC Kolkata to preserve fragile originals while making their form and content accessible globally.

Two suspected cases of #Nipah virus detected in Barasat #WB

Two Nipah virus cases have been detected in West Bengal, both involving nurses from a private hospital in Barasat. A state government team visited the hospital on Tuesday morning. Government is carrying out contact tracing in Nadia, Purba Burdhaman & North 24 Parganas.

Union Health Minister JP Nadda said, "Yesterday, on January 11th, two suspected cases of Nipah virus were found at the ICMR Viral Research and Diagnostic Laboratory in Kalyani... Coordinated action was immediately initiated to contain the outbreak. Upon receiving information about these cases last night, the Union Health Secretary discussed the situation with the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary of Health of West Bengal. To provide assistance to West Bengal and to contain the outbreak, we immediately established a National Joint Outbreak Response Team. We have deployed a team with members from All India Institute of Health and Public Hygiene, Kolkata, National Institute of Virology, Pune, National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalyani, and Department of Wildlife, Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change to West Bengal. Our protocols for Nipah virus disease and communicable diseases have been shared with the state's Integrated Disease Surveillance Unit in accordance with central government guidelines. The National Centre for Disease Control and the Public Health Emergency Operations Centre have also been activated... I spoke to West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee and asked her to instruct her team of experts to work closely with the Indian government team and put all their efforts into preventing this. They have assured me that they have activated the department..."

#SC issues notice regarding unprecedented legal immunity granted to #ECs

In a significant legal development on January 12, 2026, the Supreme Court of India issued a notice to the Central Government regarding a new Public Interest Litigation (PIL). This plea specifically challenges a provision of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

While the law has been under fire since its inception, the latest challenge focuses on a specific "immunity" clause.

Key Provisions Challenged

Immunity from Prosecution: The latest PIL (heard by a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant) challenges a provision that allegedly grants lifelong immunity to the CEC and ECs from civil and criminal proceedings for actions taken during their official duties.

Petitioner's Argument: The plea argues that this level of immunity is "unprecedented" and was not even granted by the Constitution's framers to Judges or other high-ranking dignitaries.

The Selection Committee (Section 7): This remains the most controversial part of the Act. It replaced the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on the selection panel with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.  

Current Panel: Prime Minister, a Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition (LoP).  

Contention: Petitioners (including Dr. Jaya Thakur and the ADR) argue this dilutes the independence of the Election Commission by giving the executive a 2-1 majority in appointments.

The core of the dispute is the Separation of Powers. Petitioners argue that by removing the CJI and adding immunity, the government has essentially overridden a Constitution Bench judgment and compromised the "free and fair" nature of Indian elections.  

The government, conversely, maintains that Article 324(2) of the Constitution gives Parliament the absolute right to make laws regarding these appointments.

The specific provision being challenged for granting "life-long immunity" is Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Section 16: The "Protection" Clause

This section states that no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against a person who is or was a Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner for any act, thing, or word committed, done, or spoken by them while performing their official duties.  

The Controversy: Petitioners argue that this creates a shield of "unprecedented" immunity. While most public servants have "good faith" protection, the phrasing here is seen as being so broad that it could prevent any accountability for even serious legal violations during their tenure.

Comparison: The plea notes that the Constitution does not grant this level of absolute, life-long immunity even to Supreme Court or High Court judges.

The Petitioners & Legal Team

The current legal challenge is a "bunch of petitions" led by several prominent figures and organizations:

Dr. Jaya Thakur: A General Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee, who was the first to file a stay application against the Act.  

Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR): An NGO known for electoral reform litigation.  

Sanjay Narayanrao Meshram & Dharmendra Singh Kushwaha: Individual activists who have also joined the challenge.  

Key Legal Counsel:

The petitioners are represented by a powerhouse legal team, including:

Advocate Prashant Bhushan (representing ADR)  

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal  

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh  

Next Steps for the Case

The Supreme Court (Bench led by CJI Surya Kant) has issued a notice to the Centre and the Election Commission to respond to these specific claims regarding Section 16. The court has indicated it will examine whether such a provision is constitutionally valid or if it violates the principle of the "Rule of Law."

#Laptop & Green Folder to be kept at the Strong Room of Calcutta High Court not at Nabanna : #SC

The Supreme Court has taken a very cautious approach to the "Forensic Preservation" of the digital devices, balancing the ED's investigative rights against the State's privacy claims.

Here are the specific instructions from the written order regarding the laptop and the "Green Folder":

Forensic Preservation & Sealing

The Court has issued a "Seal and Secure" directive rather than an immediate forensic handover.

Neutral Custody: The laptop and the physical documents (the "Green Folder") are to be placed in a sealed box in the presence of:

The Registrar (Judicial) of the Calcutta High Court.

A senior representative of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

A senior official nominated by the West Bengal Chief Secretary.

The "Hash Value" Protocol: Before sealing, the Registrar has been directed to record the Hash Value (digital fingerprint) of the laptop in the presence of both parties to ensure that no data is added, deleted, or modified while in custody.

Location: The sealed material will be kept in the Strong Room of the Calcutta High Court, not at the State Secretariat (Nabanna), to maintain judicial neutrality.

The "Statement of Fact" (Due Tomorrow)

The Court has directed the West Bengal government to file a detailed affidavit by 4:00 PM tomorrow (January 13) addressing the following:

Identity of Devices: The exact make, model, and ownership of the laptop removed from the site.

The "Green Folder": A list of the categories of documents contained in the folder (without revealing the actual contents).

Legal Justification: The specific legal provision or "emergency" that necessitated the Chief Minister’s entry into a PMLA search site.

Protection for ED Officers

The written order explicitly stays all proceedings in the FIRs registered by the Kolkata Police against the ED raiding team. The CJI remarked that central officers must be able to perform statutory duties without the "sword of arrest" hanging over them for doing their jobs.

Instructions issued by Supreme Court:

Current Location Must be shifted to the Calcutta High Court Strong Room by 5:00 PM today.

Zero Access. Neither the ED nor the State can open or use the device.

Forensic Analysis Deferred. The Court will decide on Wednesday (Jan 14) whether to send it to CFSL (Central Forensic Science Laboratory) or return it to I-PAC after "scrubbing" sensitive political data.

The written order contains a significant footnote referencing the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Review. It states that the "nature of the seized material" will be adjudicated keeping in view the evolving interpretation of Section 3 of the PMLA. This suggests that if the "untainted property" requirement is reinstated later this month, the ED may lose its right to keep the laptop if it only contains "political data" and no "financial laundering" evidence.

Highlights of the Interim Order Passed by SC# in #ED vs #WB Govt case

The Court refused to grant the ED an immediate CBI probe but issued the following directions:

Notice Issued: The Court has formally issued notice to the State of West Bengal and the DGP.

Status Quo on Evidence: The Bench directed the West Bengal Government to ensure that the laptop and documents allegedly removed by the CM are kept in "safe custody" and not tampered with until the next hearing.

No Coercive Action: The Court stayed any "retaliatory" FIRs filed by the West Bengal Police against the ED officers involved in the I-PAC raid.

Bypassing High Court: The CJI observed that since the Calcutta High Court is currently facing "unrest," the Supreme Court will continue to hear this matter to ensure a neutral environment.

No ex-parte orders on #ED's Article 32 writ petition from #SC

The CJI has made a significant preliminary remark in the West Bengal govt. vs ED case related to raids on I-PAC last week.

"We are concerned about the allegations of a constitutional functionary entering a search premises. At the same time, we must ensure that an investigation does not turn into a tool for political data-mining."

As of 11:30 AM today, January 12, 2026, the Supreme Court has commenced the hearing on the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) high-profile petition against the West Bengal Government.

The courtroom is packed, and the atmosphere in Court No. 1 is tense as the Chief Justice and Justice Bagchi have begun taking up "Miscellaneous Matters."

1. Live Display Board Status

Court Number: 1 (Chief Justice’s Court)  

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Current Item: The court is currently finishing the first few fresh admission items. The ED's petition is being mentioned by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Presence of Caveator: As anticipated, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal is already on his feet, representing the State of West Bengal. The caveat has effectively prevented any early morning ex-parte (one-sided) orders.

2. The Solicitor General’s Opening (ED's Arguments)

The Solicitor General has begun by painting a picture of a "total collapse of the constitutional order" in West Bengal.

The "Evidence Theft": He is emphasizing that the Chief Minister’s act of removing a laptop and a green folder from a PMLA search site is not just obstruction, but a criminal act of "theft and destruction of evidence."

Targeting the I-PAC Raid: The ED argues that the ₹10 crore hawala link to the coal scam is the "proceeds of crime," and the digital devices contain the trail.  

3. The "Untainted Property" & PMLA Review Context

This is where the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary review becomes critical today.

The State's Push: Kapil Sibal has just interjected, arguing that the ED’s definition of "proceeds of crime" in this raid is overly broad. He is subtly referencing that the "untainted property" requirement is currently being reviewed by this very bench later this month.

The Argument: The State is contending that the ED is using the "mere possession" rule (upheld in 2022 but under review now) to seize confidential political data that has nothing to do with money laundering.

Next Update: 1:00 PM

The arguments are getting more technical regarding the Article 136 petition (the ED's bypass of the High Court).

#ED vs. #WB Govt standoff hinges on the outcome of Review Petition against the 2022 Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment

The Review Petition against the 2022 Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment is perhaps the most significant legal development currently pending in the Supreme Court regarding the powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment that fundamentally reshaped the landscape of financial crime prosecution. A three-judge bench upheld the constitutional validity of almost all the contested provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

This ruling significantly empowered the Enforcement Directorate (ED), effectively distinguishing it from the regular police and exempting it from several standard criminal procedure safeguards.

The review petition (led by Karti Chidambaram and others) challenges these "harsh" interpretations on 13 specific grounds, primarily:  

ECIR Copy : ED is not required to give the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) to the accused. Violates Article 21; an accused must know the full nature of the allegations to defend themselves.

Self-Incrimination : Statements made under Section 50 are admissible in court; ED officers are not "police officers." Violates Article 20(3) (Right against self-incrimination) and the Evidence Act.

Bail (Twin Conditions) : Accused must prove they are "not guilty" at the bail stage (Section 45). Reverses the "Presumption of Innocence," making bail nearly impossible.

Money Bill : Upheld PMLA amendments made via the "Money Bill" route. Argued as unconstitutional; a criminal law cannot be amended via a fiscal budget tool.

Definition of Offense : "Possession" of crime proceeds is enough to charge someone with money laundering. Argument against it is that "projecting" the money as untainted must be a necessary ingredient (i.e., trying to make "dirty" money look "clean").

Connection to the West Bengal / I-PAC Case

The outcome of this review is directly relevant to the current ED vs. West Bengal standoff.

The West Bengal government's defense in the I-PAC raid hinges on the argument that the ED is using its "unchecked powers" to seize confidential political data.  

If the Review Bench (CJI Surya Kant's bench) eventually rules that ED officers are akin to police or that procedural safeguards of the CrPC apply, it would significantly weaken the ED's current legal standing in the Bengal case.

The Supreme Court is currently deciding the "Maintainability" of the review. Since reviews have a very narrow scope (restricted to "errors apparent on the face of the record"), the ED is arguing that the petitioners are trying to re-argue the entire case. However, the bench has shown a willingness to examine at least two major issues: the non-supply of ECIR and the reversal of the burden of proof.  

#ED's two-pronged legal strategy of filing SLP under 136 and writ under article 32 in #SC tomorrow

• Supreme Court Hearing Schedule (Jan 12, 2026)
• Courtroom: Court No. 1 (Chief Justice's Court).
• Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
• Item Number: The matter is listed as a Fresh Admission item (likely within the first 5-10 items).

In the high-stakes legal battle between Enforcement Directorate (ED) and West Bengal govt. ED is currently pursuing the two distinct legal routes in the Supreme Court in the case related to its raids on I-PAC (the political consultancy firm associated with the Trinamool Congress).

While the ED initially considered an Article 32 writ petition (for direct violation of fundamental rights/obstruction of justice), the focus has shifted toward Article 136, which involves a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

Why Article 136?

The ED is using Article 136 to challenge the Calcutta High Court's refusal to grant an urgent hearing on January 9.

The Trigger: Justice Suvra Ghosh adjourned the matter to January 14 due to "chaos" in the courtroom.

The ED's Argument: The agency argues that a delay of even four days is fatal to the investigation, as digital evidence allegedly "stolen" by the State administration could be wiped or tampered with before the High Court reconvenes.

The Power of 136: This article gives the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant "Special Leave" to appeal against any order or determination from any court in India.

Tomorrow's Bench (Monday, Jan 12, 2026)

The SLP under Article 136 is expected to be mentioned alongside the main petition before:

Court No. 1: Chief Justice of India (CJI) and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

The "Caveat" Factor: Usually, in an SLP, the petitioner (ED) tries to get an "ad-interim" stay or direction on the first day. However, because of the Caveat, the Supreme Court Registry has already alerted the West Bengal government's legal team. They will be present in the courtroom the moment the case is called.

What the ED is specifically asking for under Art. 136:

Immediate Custody: That the digital devices (laptops and phones) allegedly taken from the raid site be deposited with the Supreme Court Registry or a central forensic lab.

Stay on Police Action: To prevent the West Bengal Police from filing "retaliatory" FIRs against ED officers who conducted the raid.

CBI Monitoring: A direction that the CBI should oversee the "recovery" of the evidence allegedly removed by the Chief Minister.

Current Status: The case is in the "Pre-Admission" stage. Tomorrow morning (10:30 AM), the CJI will decide whether to "Issue Notice" or pass an "Interim Order."

 Role of the Caveat Tomorrow

The West Bengal government’s Caveat is the most critical document for the morning session.

Presence of Counsel: Because the caveat was filed and served, the Court Registry has already notified the State’s Advocate-on-Record. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal is expected to be present to represent the State.

No Ex-Parte Orders: Usually, the ED would ask the CJI for an "ad-interim" direction (like the immediate return of the laptop and green folder seen with the CM) before the other side even knows about the case. The caveat makes this impossible. The CJI must hear the State’s objections before passing any such order.

What the ED is seeking (The Article 136 Route)

The ED is arguing that the Calcutta High Court failed to act when its proceedings were disrupted by "mobs" on Friday. They are asking the Supreme Court to:

Seal the Evidence: Force the State to deposit the digital devices allegedly removed by the CM into the custody of the Supreme Court.

CBI Probe: Direct the CBI to investigate the "theft" of evidence from a central agency's search site.

Protection: Restrain the State Police from taking any coercive action against the ED officers who conducted the I-PAC raid.

The State’s Defense

The State will likely argue that:

The ED’s raid was a "fishing expedition" to steal confidential 2026 election data.  

There is no "urgent" need for Supreme Court intervention since the High Court is already seized of the matter and will hear it on Wednesday (Jan 14).