000			02051nab a2200205 c 4500
999			_c146911 _d146911
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20230102131130.0
007			ta
008			221230t2022 ne ||||| |||| 00| 0|eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
100	1		_970298 _aRanjan, Prabhash
245		0	_aRetroactive taxation, investor-state dispute settlement, and India _bLife Comes a Full Circle _c Prabhash Ranjan
500			_aResumen
520			_aAfter amending the Income Tax Act (IT Act) in 2012 to impose taxes retroactively on indirect transfers involving non-residents, India recently nullified this law. Towards the end of 2020, two investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals under the India-Netherlands and India- United Kingdom bilateral investment treaties (BITs) found India’s retroactive tax in breach of India’s BIT obligations. These arbitral defeats incited India to eliminate the infamous 2012 retroactive amendment to the tax laws. This article documents and analyses the sordid saga of nine long years by explaining the origin, evolution, and culmination of India’s retroactive tax misadventure. Considering the increasing number of instances for which foreign investors use the ISDS mechanism to challenge the host state’s sovereign taxation measures as BIT breaches, the ISDS rulings against India, especially by the tribunal in Cairn Energy v. India, assumes significance. A more comprehensive reading of the tribunal’s reasoning in Cairn Energy v. India elucidates that, while taxation measures are indeed an integral part of the state’s sovereign right to regulate, it has to be exercised reasonably and proportionately when furthering a public purpose. The exploitation of the power to tax disproportionately may prove to be detrimental to the state.
650		4	_952228 _aRETROACTIVIDAD DE LAS LEYES
650		4	_949045 _aIMPUESTO SOBRE LA RENTA DE NO RESIDENTES
650		4	_945694 _aINDIA
773	0		_9168618 _oOP 2141/2022/11 _tIntertax _w(IEF)55619 _x 0165-2826 _g v. 50, n. 11, November 2022, p. 824-835
942			_cART