The Curious Case Of Tiger Global-Flipkart Exit: Inside SC Order Which Will Result In Over Rs 14000 Crore Tax Gain For India

The Tiger Global tax case revolves around capital gains earned from exits in Indian startups, routed through offshore investment entities. Indian tax authorities allege that although the transactions were structured outside India, the economic substance of the gains arose from Indian assets, making them taxable in India.

Tiger Global has maintained that its investment and exit structures were legitimate, treaty-compliant and commercially driven.

How Did Tiger Global Invest In India? 

Tiger Global invested in Indian startups through foreign-based funds and holding entities, a common structure used by global venture capital firms.

These entities:

• Held stakes in Indian companies
• Were located in jurisdictions with favourable tax treaties
• Acted as the formal shareholders on record

At the time investments were made, such structures were widely used across the venture capital ecosystem.

How Were The Exits Structured? 

According to tax authorities, instead of selling shares of Indian companies directly, Tiger Global executed exits by:

• Selling shares of offshore holding entities
• Transferring ownership between non-Indian entities
• Booking capital gains outside India

This is known as an indirect transfer, where Indian assets change hands without a direct transaction in India.

Also read: SC Rules Against Tiger Global On 2018 Flipkart Deal - Details

Why Did Tax Authorities Challenge The Structure? 

The tax department’s challenge rests on three main arguments:

1. Economic substance: Authorities argue that the real value being transferred was linked to Indian businesses, even if the legal transaction occurred offshore.
2. Limited commercial activity offshore: They claim that intermediate entities had minimal independent operations and existed primarily to route investments.
3. Avoidance of capital gains tax: Had the exits been treated as direct transfers of Indian shares, authorities say capital gains tax would have accrued in India.

How Was The ₹14,000 Crore Figure Arrived At?

The estimated tax demand includes:

• Capital gains from multiple Indian startup exits
• Applicable Indian tax rates
• Interest and penalty components under tax law

The cumulative assessment across transactions reportedly resulted in the ₹14,000 crore figure.

Tiger Global’s Position

Tiger Global has consistently argued that:

• Its investment structures were legal and transparent
• Transactions complied with applicable tax treaties
• Tax residency and substance requirements were met
• Indian tax law at the time permitted such structuring

The firm has contested the assessments through legal channels.

What The Law Says: GAAR and Indirect Transfers

Under India’s tax framework:

• Legitimate tax planning is permitted
• GAAR can be invoked only if arrangements lack commercial substance
• The burden of proof lies on tax authorities
• Each transaction must be examined on facts

Courts have repeatedly cautioned against recharacterising transactions solely because they result in tax savings.

Why the Tiger Global Case Matters?

This case is being closely watched because it:

• Affects foreign investor confidence
• Tests India’s approach to retrospective and anti-avoidance taxation
• Has implications for VC and PE fund structures
• May influence how future exits from Indian startups are structured

It also feeds into broader discussions around tax certainty, treaty negotiations and India’s stance in global trade and investment talks.

What Happens Next?

The outcome will depend on judicial findings on:

• Substance versus form
• Validity of treaty benefits
• Applicability of GAAR
• Timing of transactions relative to law changes
   

A final ruling could set an important precedent for how India taxes offshore exits linked to domestic assets.

Also read: INDIA-EU Trade Deal on January 27? Pact Will Exclude Farming