India’s Supreme Court delivered a major ruling on January 15, 2026, determining that Tiger Global must pay taxes on its $1.6 billion sale of Flipkart shares to Walmart in 2018, rejecting the firm’s bid for exemption under the India–Mauritius tax treaty.
The decision is seen as a landmark ruling with broad implications for cross‑border taxation, treaty interpretation, and foreign investment in India.
Background: The Flipkart Stake Sale and Tax Dispute
In 2018, U.S. private equity investor Tiger Global sold its stake in Indian e‑commerce company Flipkart, as part of Walmart’s $16 billion acquisition of the business.
Tiger Global’s Mauritius‑based entities had sought to claim exemption from capital gains tax under the India–Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)—a treaty historically used to mitigate tax liabilities on cross‑border deals.
Indian tax authorities argued the structure was a tax avoidance arrangement, asserting that the Mauritius entities acted as conduits for the U.S. parent and should not be eligible for treaty benefits. Tiger Global maintained that the treaty exempted its gains from Indian taxation.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Its Rationale
The Supreme Court found in favor of the Indian government, concluding that Tiger Global’s transaction could not claim exemption under the tax treaty and was therefore subject to Indian capital gains tax. The court described the transaction as impermissible tax avoidance, reinforcing India’s sovereign right to tax income arising from deals involving Indian assets.
This judgment overturns the Delhi High Court’s earlier ruling, which had sided with Tiger Global and upheld treaty protections, and follows a period in which the Supreme Court had stayed that decision while considering the broader implications.
Implications for Tax Treaty Interpretation
Tax experts and legal observers view the verdict as setting a precedent for how India applies tax treaties, particularly around treaty‑shopping and conduit arrangements. The decision emphasizes stricter scrutiny of structures designed to exploit treaty benefits, potentially reducing tax avoidance opportunities in future cross‑border investments.
By clarifying the limits on treaty protections, the ruling could influence deal structures, investment decisions, and tax planning strategies for foreign investors operating in or through jurisdictions like Mauritius.
Broader Impact on Foreign Investment Sentiment
The case is closely watched by global investors concerned about regulatory certainty and tax risk in India, one of the world’s fastest‑growing consumer markets. With the Supreme Court reinforcing India’s taxing rights, multinational firms may need to reassess how they structure acquisitions and exits involving Indian targets or assets.
While the exact tax liability Tiger Global now faces has not been disclosed publicly, the ruling is expected to influence large inbound investment transactions and could lead to renewed discussions on the role and interpretation of international tax treaties.
The Supreme Court’s decision against Tiger Global in the 2018 Flipkart stake sale tax case marks a significant shift in India’s approach to international treaty claims, reinforcing the government’s efforts to curb tax avoidance via conduit entities and affirming sovereign taxing rights on capital gains related to Indian investments.
More about government:
Staff Report
Staff Report
Staff Report
