Tiger Global Case 2026, Treaty Shopping and Mauritius Investors

Written by Nihal Srivastava, Krystal7 Consultants. Last updated 23 October 2026.

In the Tiger Global case (2026 INSC 60), decided on 15 Jan 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the revenue's appeals against the Mauritius sellers. It set aside the Delhi High Court judgment of 28 Aug 2024. The AAR's 2020 order stands, finding the Mauritius funds' 2018 Flipkart share sale prima facie designed to avoid tax. A Mauritius TRC and a purchase before 1 Apr 2017 no longer close the question on their own.

This case note covers the question, the facts and the order, the legal framework, the reasoning and what has changed since. It ends with our view and practical steps for holding structures through Mauritius and Singapore.

What did the Supreme Court decide in the Tiger Global case?

The Supreme Court ruled for the revenue on 15 Jan 2026. It allowed the appeals of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) and the tax department, and set aside the Delhi High Court judgment. The AAR's order of 26 Mar 2020 therefore stands. That order rejected the Mauritius sellers' advance ruling applications as prima facie designed to avoid tax.

Item	Detail
Case	The Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) and Others v Tiger Global International II Holdings, with connected appeals against Tiger Global International III Holdings and Tiger Global International IV Holdings
Forum	Supreme Court of India, civil appellate jurisdiction
Citation	2026 INSC 60; Civil Appeal Nos. 262, 263 and 264 of 2026
Arising from	SLP (C) No. 2640 of 2025, SLP (C) No. 2565 of 2026 (Diary No. 1260 of 2025) and SLP (C) No. 5987 of 2025
Date of judgment	15 Jan 2026
Bench	Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan; judgment of the Court delivered by Justice R. Mahadevan
Separate opinion	Justice J.B. Pardiwala delivered a separate concurring judgment, as the record of proceedings of 15 Jan 2026 records
Decision below	Delhi High Court, common judgment of 28 Aug 2024 in W.P.(C) Nos. 6764, 6765 and 6766 of 2020
Result	"The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment" (record of proceedings); the High Court judgment no longer stands

In the official PDF, Part V.C (Discussion and Findings) starts at page 104. Part VI (Conclusion) is at page 132 and Part VII (Result) at page 133. The record of proceedings says the two judges "pronounced their respective separate but concurring judgments". The text of the PDF that we could read ends before Part V.C and before Justice Pardiwala's opinion. Read both in the PDF before you quote them.

What question did the Court answer?

The Court chose to decide one core issue rather than every point the revenue raised (paragraph 11.1). It framed that issue as follows.

Whether the AAR was right in rejecting the applications for Advance Ruling on the ground of maintainability, by treating the capital gains arising out of a transaction of sale of shares of a Singapore Co., which holds the shares of an Indian company, by a Mauritian company controlled by an American company, to be prima facie an arrangement for tax avoidance, and hence, whether it can be enquired into to ascertain whether the capital gains would be taxable in India under the Income Tax Act read with the relevant provisions of the Mauritius Treaty or not?

So the case turned on the threshold bar in the advance ruling scheme. Paragraph 11 records that the AAR "had prima facie found the claim to be an arrangement to avoid tax". The High Court had set that aside and "rendered its findings on the merits".

What were the facts?

In 2018 three Mauritius companies sold shares of Flipkart's Singapore holding company, which the judgment calls Singapore Co. Its shares drew substantial value from Indian assets (paragraph 6.19). The buyer was Fit Holdings S.A.R.L. of Luxembourg, as part of Walmart Inc.'s majority acquisition (paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6).

The sellers were private companies incorporated in Mauritius. Each held a Category I Global Business Licence and a TRC from the Mauritius Revenue Authority (paragraphs 5 to 5.2). Tiger Global Management LLC of the US provided investment services, subject to board approval (paragraph 5.3).

Seller	Shares of Singapore Co. acquired	When acquired	Shares sold in 2018	Gross consideration (USD)
Tiger Global International II Holdings	23,670,710	Oct 2011 to Apr 2015	14,754,087	1,893,510,103.82
Tiger Global International III Holdings	2,282,825	23 Jun 2014	1,422,897	181,782,633.10
Tiger Global International IV Holdings	105,928	24 Apr 2012	66,026	8,435,171.44

The tax department issued withholding certificates under section 197 on 17 Aug 2018 at 6.05, 6.92 and 8.47 percent. It took the view that the sellers were not independent in their decision making (paragraph 5.6). The sellers then applied to the AAR under section 245Q(1). They asked whether the gains were chargeable in India under the Act read with the India Mauritius treaty (paragraph 5.7).

What did the AAR and the Delhi High Court hold?

The AAR refused to answer the question on the merits. The High Court answered it for the taxpayers.

The AAR. In its order of 26 Mar 2020 it held that the applications were "prima facie designed for avoidance of tax" (paragraph 6.9). It found that "the actual control and management of the assessees were not in Mauritius but in the USA". It described Charles P. Coleman as "the beneficial owner of the entire group structure" and the sellers as "mere conduit companies, lacking commercial substance". The High Court recorded the AAR's finding that "the head and brain were not situated in Mauritius" (paragraph 6.11).

High Court. On 28 Aug 2024 the Delhi High Court allowed the writ petitions and held the gains not chargeable in India (paragraph 5.10). Its main reasons, as the Supreme Court records them, were these:

• The TRC issued by Mauritius was "sacrosanct" (paragraph 6.15).
• Circular No. 789 of 2000 said a Mauritius TRC would suffice (paragraph 6.16).
• An LOB clause addresses treaty abuse and is "determinative" (paragraph 6.17).
• Article 13(3A) showed that the two states meant to protect gains on earlier investments (paragraph 6.18).
• The phrase "without prejudice" in Rule 10U(2) meant it applied only to cases outside Rule 10U(1)(d) (paragraph 6.18).
• The shares derived substantial value from Indian assets, so the indirect transfer test was met (paragraph 6.19).

The AAR had found that Mr Coleman alone exercised real control over decisions on any transaction above USD 250,000 (paragraph 6.4). The High Court recorded that his authority to approve large expenditure came from a collective board decision. It also needed countersignature by the directors based in Mauritius (paragraph 6.13).

What legal framework applies to a Mauritius share sale?

Four layers apply: the treaty text, the CBDT circulars, the Income Tax Act and the GAAR rules.

The treaty. The convention was notified by GSR 920(E) of 26 Dec 1983. A protocol signed on 10 May 2016 entered into force on 19 Jul 2016 and was notified by S.O. 2680(E) of 10 Aug 2016. It made these changes:

• Article 13(3A). Gains on shares acquired on or after 1 Apr 2017 in a company resident in a state may be taxed in that state.
• Article 13(3B). For gains arising from 1 Apr 2017 to 31 Mar 2019, the tax rate could not exceed 50 percent of the domestic rate.
• Article 13(4). Gains from other property stay taxable only in the seller's state of residence.
• Article 27A. A resident loses the Article 13(3B) benefit if its affairs were arranged with the primary purpose of getting it. A shell or conduit also loses it. A company is deemed a shell if it spent less than MUR 1,500,000 (Mauritian rupees) or INR 27,00,000 on operations in the previous 12 months.

The circulars. Paragraphs 12.4 to 12.9 of the judgment trace them. Circular No. 682 of 30 Mar 1994 said gains of Mauritius residents on Indian shares were taxable only in Mauritius. Circular No. 789 of 2000 said a Mauritius certificate of residence was sufficient evidence of residence and beneficial ownership. Paragraph 12.6 records that India proposed a limitation clause in 1995 and Mauritius rejected it.

Act and rules. The map below links the 1961 provisions argued in the case to the Income Tax Act, 2025. The new Act applies from 1 Apr 2026.

Topic	Income Tax Act, 1961	Income Tax Act, 2025
Treaty relief	Section 90	Section 159
Treaty or Act, whichever is more beneficial	Section 90(2)	Section 159(4)
GAAR applies even if not beneficial	Section 90(2A)	Section 159(6)
TRC as a condition	Section 90(4)	Section 159(8)(a)
Other prescribed information (Form 10F, now Form 41)	Section 90(5)	Section 159(8)(b)
GAAR chapter	Chapter X-A (sections 95 to 102)	Chapter XI
GAAR grandfathering for investments before 1 Apr 2017	Rule 10U(1)(d) and 10U(2), Income Tax Rules, 1962	Rule 128(1)(d) and 128(2), Income Tax Rules, 2026
Lower withholding certificate	Section 197 (Form 13)	Section 395(1) (Form 128)
Information from an Indian company on an indirect transfer	Form 49D	Form 163

Rule 10U(1)(d) kept GAAR away from income from the transfer of investments made before 1 Apr 2017. Rule 10U(2) applied GAAR to any arrangement, whatever its date, for a tax benefit obtained on or after 1 Apr 2017. It did so "without prejudice" to clause (d). The case turned partly on how those two sub rules fit together. Our GAAR guide explains the wider rules.

How did the parties argue grandfathering, the TRC and GAAR?

The revenue said the treaty never reached these gains, and that GAAR applied anyway. The sellers said the treaty and the grandfathering rules protected them completely. Parts IV.A and IV.B of the judgment record the arguments.

Issue	Revenue (appellants)	Sellers (respondents)
Nature of the AAR finding	Only a prima facie view (paragraph 7)	The bar needs "clear evidence of a premeditated tax avoidance design" (paragraph 8.22)
TRC	"A TRC constitutes only prima facie evidence of residence" (paragraph 7.5)	Article 4 is "a mandatory and exclusive rule for determining residence" (paragraph 8); Circular 789 applies (paragraph 8.4)
Treaty article	An indirect transfer falls under Article 13(4), which carries no LOB or grandfathering (paragraph 7.14)	The 2016 protocol works only for the future and leaves gains on earlier investments alone (paragraph 8.7)
Taxability in India	Section 9(1) read with Explanations 4 and 5 (paragraph 7.4)	Exempt under the treaty
GAAR and Rule 10U	Rule 10U(2) can reach arrangements made before 2017; "arrangement" and "investment" differ (paragraphs 7.19, 7.20)	Rule 10U(1)(d) protects all income from transfers of earlier investments (paragraphs 8.15, 8.16)
Domestic anti abuse doctrines	Codified through GAAR and recognised in Vodafone (paragraph 7.17)	Veil lifting cannot deny treaty benefits without express treaty words (paragraph 8.6)

How did the Court reason?

The record of proceedings says the appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment. The reasoning sits in Part V.C, pages 104 to 131 of the official PDF. The text of the PDF that we could read did not reach it, so we do not state these points as the Court's holdings. Published analyses of the judgment report the points below. Check each against Part V.C and Part VI before you rely on it.

1. The AAR may reject an application at the threshold under proviso (iii) to section 245R(2) where a transaction looks prima facie designed to avoid tax. That inquiry can cover control, management and real ownership.
2. The High Court should not have treated the AAR's prima facie findings as a final decision on the merits.
3. A TRC is necessary for treaty relief but is not conclusive. Circular No. 789 does not survive the later amendments to section 90.
4. Articles 13(3A) and 13(3B) deal with direct transfers of shares. An indirect transfer falls under Article 13(4), which carries no grandfathering.
5. GAAR cannot be ruled out only because the investment was made before 1 Apr 2017, given the wording of Rule 10U(2).

The record itself shows a narrower point. The Court restored an AAR order that rested on control and management sitting in the US.

Does grandfathering under Article 13(3A) still protect shares bought before 1 Apr 2017?

Yes for the treaty's allocation of taxing rights, but not as a shield against anti abuse rules. Article 13(3A) taxes only shares acquired on or after 1 Apr 2017. A seller of earlier shares must still show it is entitled to treaty benefits at all. Judicial anti abuse rules can still apply. Since 31 Mar 2026, GAAR does not reach income from transferring investments that the same person made before 1 Apr 2017.

The date of purchase answers one question: which paragraph of Article 13 applies. It does not answer whether the seller is a genuine resident entitled to the treaty. The Tiger Global sellers bought between Oct 2011 and Apr 2015, well before the cut off, and still lost.

Direct and indirect transfers also differ. Article 13(3A) speaks of shares of a company resident in a state. The revenue argued that a sale of a Singapore company's shares falls under Article 13(4) instead (paragraph 7.14).

For a direct sale of Indian shares, our guide to tax on sale of unlisted shares by non residents covers rates and withholding.

Is a Tax Residency Certificate still enough?

A TRC is still required, but it is no longer safe to treat it as the end of the inquiry. Section 159(8)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 2025 makes a TRC a condition for treaty relief. Section 159(8)(b) adds prescribed information on Form 41. Commentators read the Tiger Global ruling as limiting reliance on a TRC alone.

The High Court had treated the TRC as "sacrosanct", relying on Azadi Bachao Andolan, Vodafone and Circular No. 789 (paragraphs 6.15 and 6.16). The Supreme Court set that judgment aside. The AAR order it restored found the head and brain outside Mauritius despite valid TRCs.

We now ask clients for a residence file as well as the certificate:

• board minutes showing decisions taken in the treaty state
• directors who live there and take part in decisions
• an approval matrix that does not route large decisions to another country
• bank signatories and records kept in the treaty state
• accounts showing real operating expenditure

Our Form 10F and TRC guide covers the documents, and the POEM guide explains control and management tests.

How does the ruling affect Singapore holding structures?

The same questions arise for Singapore, and the treaty adds a hard test. India's treaty with Singapore makes its grandfathering of pre 1 Apr 2017 shares subject to the LOB clause in Article 24A. That clause sets an expenditure floor and a primary purpose test.

The amendments came in through a protocol announced by PIB on 30 Dec 2016 and notified by S.O. 935(E) of 23 Mar 2017. The table compares the two treaties.

Feature	India Mauritius	India Singapore
Gains on shares acquired before 1 Apr 2017	Residence state only (Article 13(4))	Residence state only (Article 13(4A))
Gains on shares acquired from 1 Apr 2017	May be taxed where the company is resident (Article 13(3A))	May be taxed where the company is resident (Article 13(4B))
Transition rate, 1 Apr 2017 to 31 Mar 2019	50% of domestic rate (Article 13(3B))	50% of domestic rate (Article 13(4C))
LOB covers the grandfathered gains	No, Article 27A covers Article 13(3B) only	Yes, Article 24A covers Articles 13(4A) and 13(4C)
Expenditure floor	MUR 1,500,000 or INR 27,00,000 in the previous 12 months	SGD 200,000 or INR 50,00,000 in each 12 month period of the previous 24 months
Purpose test	Principal purpose test in Article 27B from 13 Oct 2026	Primary purpose test in Article 24A(1)

A Singapore company with real operating spend can meet the safe harbour. It must still pass the primary purpose test, and the Tiger Global reasoning on control applies to it as much as to Mauritius. Our India Singapore DTAA guide and Mauritius DTAA guide cover the rest of each treaty.

What has happened since 26 Jan 2026?

This note carries a publish date of 26 Jan 2026, after the judgment of 15 Jan 2026. The events below came later.

• 31 Mar 2026. The CBDT substituted Rule 10U(1)(d) and 10U(2) of the 1962 Rules by Notification No. 54/2026 (G.S.R. 240(E)), in force from publication. The new Rule 10U(2) drops the "without prejudice" opening. It applies GAAR to arrangements for a tax benefit obtained on or after 1 Apr 2017. It excepts income from the transfer of investments "made before the 1st day of April, 2017 by such person". Notification No. 55/2026 (G.S.R. 241(E)) made the same change to rule 128 of the 2026 Rules from 1 Apr 2026.
• 1 Apr 2026. The Income Tax Act, 2025 came into force. Section 159(6) keeps GAAR applicable even where the treaty is more beneficial. Section 159(8) keeps the TRC and Form 41 conditions.
• 13 Oct 2026. India notified S.O. 5611(E), which substitutes the preamble of the India Mauritius treaty and inserts Article 27B, with effect from 13 Oct 2026. Article 27B denies a benefit where obtaining it was one of the principal purposes of an arrangement, unless granting it matches the treaty's object. The amending protocol was signed on 7 Mar 2024, as the Mauritius Cabinet highlights of 17 Jul 2026 record. CBDT Circular No. 01/2025 of 21 Jan 2025 (paragraph 4.B) keeps the grandfathering in the Mauritius, Singapore and Cyprus treaties outside the principal purpose test.

What changed in 2026

Item	Old position	New position	Date	Instrument
Judicial view of the Tiger Global AAR order	Quashed by the Delhi High Court	High Court judgment set aside; AAR order stands	15 Jan 2026	2026 INSC 60
GAAR and income from pre 2017 investments	Rule 10U(2) applied "without prejudice" to Rule 10U(1)(d)	Income from transferring investments the same person made before 1 Apr 2017 excluded from GAAR	31 Mar 2026 (rule 128 from 1 Apr 2026)	Notification No. 54/2026, G.S.R. 240(E); Notification No. 55/2026, G.S.R. 241(E)
Treaty relief provision	Section 90, Income Tax Act, 1961	Section 159, Income Tax Act, 2025	1 Apr 2026	Act 30 of 2025
GAAR override of treaty	Section 90(2A)	Section 159(6)	1 Apr 2026	Act 30 of 2025
Anti abuse rule in the Mauritius treaty	Article 27A LOB, for Article 13(3B) only	Article 27B principal purpose test, new preamble	13 Oct 2026	S.O. 5611(E), giving effect to the protocol signed on 7 Mar 2024

Our view

This section is Nihal's view, not a statement of the law. We take five positions.

1. The result follows from the threshold test. The AAR bar asks whether a transaction looks prima facie designed to avoid tax. A structure whose head and brain sat in the US was always exposed at that stage. In our view the High Court went too far by deciding the merits in a writ against a threshold order.
2. Grandfathering decides which rule applies. Article 13(3A) tells you which rule applies to shares bought before 1 Apr 2017. It never promised that any holder of such shares gets treaty benefits. Investors who read it as an amnesty for conduits misread it.
3. The 2026 Rule 10U change helps less than it seems. As notified on 31 Mar 2026, the amendment takes GAAR off income from transferring investments that the same person made before 1 Apr 2017. It leaves the judicial anti abuse rule and the treaty residence test. For Mauritius, Article 27B reaches other treaty benefits, though Circular No. 01/2025 keeps grandfathering outside the principal purpose test. Substance is still the deciding factor.
4. A TRC starts the inquiry. Section 159(8) still requires it, and tax officers will ask for it first. We now treat it as the start of a residence file that shows real decisions in the treaty state.
5. Indirect transfers are the weak point. Many offshore exits sell a foreign company, not an Indian one. If Article 13(4) governs such gains with no grandfathering, the protection rests on residence and substance alone. We would plan every offshore exit on that footing.

What should a foreign investor or an Indian subsidiary do now?

Map the structure, test it for substance, and plan the exit before signing. The points below set the order of work.

• Map the chain. Identify the seller and the shares that change hands. Decide whether the sale is a direct or an indirect transfer.
• Date the shares. Record acquisition dates for every tranche. Pre and post 1 Apr 2017 shares fall under different paragraphs.
• Build the residence file. Hold board meetings in the treaty state, with resident directors who decide. Remove approval rights that sit with a manager abroad.
• Test the expenditure floor. Check Singapore spend for each 12 month period in the 24 months before the exit, and Mauritius spend where Article 27A applies.
• Plan withholding. The buyer must withhold under section 393(2) unless the seller holds a certificate under section 395(1) on Form 128. Apply early with the residence file.
• Report the indirect transfer. An Indian company whose value moves in an offshore sale may have to file Form 163 (old Form 49D). Diarise it with the deal timetable.

For FEMA reporting on a direct transfer, see our guide to share transfers between residents and non residents.

Worked example

Scenario 1. This scenario tests the Singapore expenditure floor. A Singapore holding company bought shares of an Indian company in Mar 2016. It sells them on 1 Nov 2026 and relies on Article 13(4A). The safe harbour in Article 24A(4) needs operating spend in Singapore of at least SGD 200,000 in each 12 month period. The test looks back over the previous 24 months.

Period	Operating spend in Singapore (SGD)	Floor (SGD)	Result
1 Nov 2024 to 31 Oct 2025	185,000	200,000	Below by 15,000
1 Nov 2025 to 31 Oct 2026	240,000	200,000	Above by 40,000
Total over 24 months	425,000	Not a test	Average is not enough

The total of SGD 425,000 exceeds twice the floor, but the test applies to each period. The company misses the safe harbour in Article 24A(4). Article 24A(3) then deems it a shell or conduit company, because it spent less than SGD 200,000 in one 12 month period. Under Article 24A(2) a shell or conduit loses the Article 13(4A) exemption, so India may tax the gain.

Scenario 2. This scenario shows what treaty denial costs. A Mauritius company sells shares of an unlisted Indian company in Nov 2026 for INR 80,00,00,000. It bought them in 2015 for INR 30,00,00,000. If the treaty protects the gain, India taxes nothing. If the tax officer denies treaty benefits, the long term gain is taxed in India.

Item	Working	Amount (INR)
Long term capital gain	80,00,00,000 minus 30,00,00,000	50,00,00,000
Tax at 12.5% under section 197(1)(b), Income Tax Act, 2025	50,00,00,000 x 12.5%	6,25,00,000
Surcharge at 5% (income above INR 10,00,00,000)	6,25,00,000 x 5%	31,25,000
Cess at 4%	6,56,25,000 x 4%	26,25,000
Total Indian tax	Sum of the three	6,82,50,000

The effective rate is 13.65 percent of the gain. That is the cost a weak residence file puts at risk on this exit. Section 197(4) computes a foreign company's long term gain on unlisted shares in rupees, without the foreign currency method in section 72(6). The buyer withholds at the same 12.5 percent under section 393(2), Table S. No. 17, plus surcharge and cess.

Common mistakes

1. Treating the TRC as conclusive. The AAR found control outside Mauritius despite valid TRCs. Build a residence file that shows decisions in the treaty state.
2. Reading a pre 2017 purchase date as an exemption. The date decides the paragraph, not the entitlement. Test residence and substance as well.
3. Running approvals from the manager's home country. That was central to the AAR's finding. Move decision rights to the board in the treaty state.
4. Ignoring the indirect transfer rules. A sale of a foreign holding company can be taxable in India. Value the Indian assets. Check Explanation 5 to section 9(1)(i) of the 1961 Act and its successor in section 9 of the Income Tax Act, 2025.
5. Assuming the Rule 10U amendment ends the risk. It covers only investments the same person made before 1 Apr 2017. Judicial anti abuse rules, the residence test and, for benefits outside grandfathering, Article 27B remain. Keep the substance file current.
6. Averaging Singapore expenditure. Article 24A tests each 12 month period. Track spend by period, not by total.
7. Seeking an advance ruling with a thin file. The AAR can refuse at the threshold. Put the substance evidence in the application from the start.

Checklist

1. Map every holding entity between the investor and the Indian company.
2. Record the acquisition date and cost of each tranche of shares.
3. Classify each planned sale as a direct or an indirect transfer.
4. Collect the TRC and Form 41 for the tax year of the sale.
5. Hold and minute board meetings in the treaty state for key decisions.
6. Review the approval matrix and remove decision rights held abroad.
7. Measure operating expenditure for each 12 month period against the treaty floor.
8. Apply for a lower withholding certificate on Form 128 well before closing.
9. Diarise Form 163 for the Indian company where an indirect transfer occurs.
10. Test every Mauritius plan against Article 27B, and record whether the gain falls under the grandfathering that Circular No. 01/2025 keeps outside it.

To test a Mauritius or Singapore structure before an exit, email [email protected] with the holding chart and two years of board minutes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Supreme Court decide in the Tiger Global case?+

On 15 Jan 2026 the Supreme Court allowed the revenue's appeals in 2026 INSC 60. It set aside the Delhi High Court judgment of 28 Aug 2024. The AAR's order of 26 Mar 2020 stands. It had rejected the Mauritius sellers' applications under proviso (iii) to section 245R(2) as prima facie designed to avoid tax.

Which bench decided the Tiger Global appeals?+

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan heard Civil Appeal Nos. 262, 263 and 264 of 2026. Justice R. Mahadevan delivered the judgment of the Court on 15 Jan 2026, and Justice Pardiwala delivered a separate concurring judgment. The appeals arose from the Delhi High Court's common judgment in W.P.(C) Nos. 6764 to 6766 of 2020.

Does Article 13(3A) of the India Mauritius DTAA protect shares bought before 1 Apr 2017?+

Article 13(3A) lets India tax gains only on shares acquired on or after 1 Apr 2017. Earlier shares stay under the older residence rule. That does not settle entitlement. The seller must still be a genuine Mauritius resident, and anti abuse rules can still apply, as the Tiger Global sellers found.

Is a Mauritius TRC enough to claim treaty benefits after Tiger Global?+

No. A TRC is a condition under section 159(8)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 2025, with Form 41 under section 159(8)(b). The AAR order the Supreme Court restored found control in the US despite valid TRCs. Keep board minutes, resident directors and local decision records alongside the certificate.

Does GAAR apply to gains on investments made before 1 Apr 2017?+

Not under GAAR, if the same person made the investment. Rule 10U(1)(d) of the 1962 Rules excluded such income, but Rule 10U(2) still reached arrangements for tax benefits from 1 Apr 2017. Notification No. 54/2026 of 31 Mar 2026 closed that gap, and rule 128 of the 2026 Rules matches it. Judicial anti abuse rules still apply.

How does the Tiger Global ruling affect Singapore holding companies?+

The same substance and control questions apply. The India Singapore treaty also makes grandfathering under Article 13(4A) subject to Article 24A. The safe harbour in Article 24A(4) needs at least SGD 200,000 of operating spend in Singapore in each 12 month period. The test looks back over the previous 24 months.

What is Article 27B of the India Mauritius treaty?+

Article 27B is a principal purpose test from the protocol signed on 7 Mar 2024, inserted by S.O. 5611(E) with effect from 13 Oct 2026. It denies a treaty benefit where obtaining it was one of the principal purposes of an arrangement, unless granting it matches the treaty's object. CBDT Circular No. 01/2025 keeps grandfathering outside it.

What is an indirect transfer in Indian tax law?+

An indirect transfer is a sale of shares in a foreign company that draws its value substantially from Indian assets. Explanation 5 to section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deemed such shares situated in India. The Indian company may have to report the transfer on Form 163, formerly Form 49D.

Can an advance ruling application be rejected at the threshold?+

Yes. Proviso (iii) to section 245R(2) of the 1961 Act barred an application on a transaction designed prima facie to avoid income tax. The AAR used that bar against the Tiger Global sellers in 2020, and the Supreme Court restored its order on 15 Jan 2026.

What should a fund check before selling Indian shares through Mauritius?+

Check the acquisition date of each tranche, whether the sale is direct or indirect, and where the board takes decisions. Collect the TRC and Form 41, and apply early for a lower withholding certificate on Form 128. From 13 Oct 2026, test the plan against Article 27B, which Circular No. 01/2025 keeps away from grandfathered gains.

Sources

• Supreme Court of India, The Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) and Others v Tiger Global International II Holdings, 2026 INSC 60, judgment of 15 Jan 2026, https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/1251/1251_2025_7_1501_67552_Judgement_15-Jan-2026.pdf
• Income Tax Department, India Mauritius comprehensive agreement with the 2016 protocol and S.O. 5611(E) of 13 Oct 2026, checked 23 Oct 2026, https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/w/mauritius-comprehensive-agreements-1
• Income Tax Department, India Singapore comprehensive agreement with S.O. 935(E) of 23 Mar 2017, https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/w/singapore-comprehensive-agreements-1
• Press Information Bureau, India and Singapore sign a Third Protocol for amending the DTAA, 30 Dec 2016, https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=156015&reg=48&lang=2
• Income Tax Department, section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 2025, https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-159-89
• Supreme Court of India, record of proceedings in SLP (C) No. 2640 of 2025 and connected matters, 15 Jan 2026, https://www.sci.gov.in/sci-get-pdf/?diary_no=12512025&type=o&order_date=2026-01-15&from=latest_judgements_order
• Central Board of Direct Taxes, Notification No. 54/2026, Income Tax (Tenth Amendment) Rules, 2026 (rule 10U), G.S.R. 240(E), 31 Mar 2026, https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/documents/d/guest/notification-no-54-2026-pdf
• Central Board of Direct Taxes, Notification No. 55/2026, Income Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2026 (rule 128), G.S.R. 241(E), 31 Mar 2026, https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/documents/d/guest/notification-no-55-2026-1-pdf
• Central Board of Direct Taxes, Circular No. 01/2025, guidance on the principal purpose test, 21 Jan 2025, https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/documents/d/guest/circular-1-2025-pdf
• Prime Minister's Office, Republic of Mauritius, Highlights of Cabinet Meeting, 17 Jul 2026, https://pmo.govmu.org/CabinetDecision/2026/Final_Highlights_of_Cabinet_Meeting_Friday_17.07.2026.pdf
• Income Tax Department, section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 2025, https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-197-78
• Income Tax Department, TDS rates, https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/w/tds-rates