1. Landmark Tiger Global Judgment — Indian Supreme Court

Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) and Others v/s Tiger Global International Holdings (II, III and IV) (2026).

The Indian Tax Authority (Revenue) appealed against a Delhi High Court order that had favoured three Mauritius-based investment companies (the “Tiger Global entities”). The Tiger Global entities, each holding a global business licence from the Mauritius Financial Services Commission and a Tax Residency Certificate (“TRC”) from the Mauritius Revenue Authority (“MRA”) were set up with the primary objective of undertaking investment activities with the intention of earning long-term capital appreciation and investment income. The Tiger Global entities sold and transferred their shares held in Flipkart Private Limited (“Flipkart”), a private company limited by shares incorporated under the laws of Singapore deriving substantial value from its assets located in India, to Fit Holdings S.A.R.L (“Fit Holdings”), a company incorporated under the laws of Luxembourg. The Indian tax authorities informed the Tiger Global entities that they could not claim treaty benefits under the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) on the ground that they were not independent in their decision-making and that control over the decision-making relating to the purchase and sale of the shares did not lie with them.  The matter was brought to the Authority for Advance Rulings (“AAR”) and to the Delhi High Court. The question that arose in the case was whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, gains arising to the Tiger Global entities from the sale of the relevant shares would be chargeable to tax in India under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the DTAA between India and Mauritius. The Delhi High Court held that Tiger Global entities were entitled to treaty benefits and that their income would not be chargeable to tax in India. The Indian tax authorities appealed to the decision of the High Court.

In a highly anticipated decision delivered on 15 January 2026, the Supreme Court of India clarified the scope of treaty benefits under the India-Mauritius DTAA and India’s domestic anti-avoidance tax regime. The Court held that capital gains arising from Tiger Global’s sale of Flipkart shares to Fit Holdings are taxable in India, overturning the Delhi High Court’s 2024 judgment that had permitted treaty exemption.

Key takeaways:

• The Court emphasised that possession of a TRC issued by the MRA is necessary but not conclusive; authorities can look beyond formal documentation where treaty abuse or tax avoidance is alleged.

• Entities lacking real commercial substance, control or decision-making in the claimed residence jurisdiction cannot automatically claim DTAA benefits even when grandfathering provisions apply.

• This ruling reinforces the substance-over-form doctrine, signalling that treaty benefits may be denied where intermediary holding structures serve primarily tax-avoidance purposes.

The decision is perceived as creating uncertainty as regard s taxation under the DTAA and is widely seen as reshaping India’s approach to cross-border investment structures and interjecting  greater scrutiny into offshore investment vehicles claiming treaty benefits and protections.

2. Double Taxation Agreement with Jersey

Mauritius and Jersey have continued to update their bilateral tax treaty framework to align with modern international tax standards. A protocol amending the Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) between the two jurisdictions was presented to the Jersey States Assembly in 2025, reflecting both countries’ commitment to international transparency and OECD-aligned tax norms.

While the treaty framework was originally concluded in 2017, the 2025 protocol aims to modernise the DTAA, ensure compatibility with evolving global tax policies, and support clarity on cross-border taxation of income and capital gains. Implementation will be subject to each jurisdiction’s domestic ratification processes.

The cabinet of Ministers has on 23 January 2026 approved the promulgation of the DTAA.  The effective date of the DTAA will be confirmed once the document is gazetted. 

3. FSC Mauritius — Regulatory Updates

The Financial Services Commission (FSC) of Mauritius has introduced several noteworthy regulatory developments as part of efforts to enhance efficiency and risk-based supervision of the non-banking financial sector:

1. “Known to the Commission” (KTC) Framework (effective 5 January 2026): The FSC has launched the KTC regime to streamline regulatory processes by allowing it to rely on existing due-diligence information for entities and individuals already screened by the regulator. This is designed to reduce duplication and accelerate licensing and compliance checks for investment funds and adviser licences.
2. Licence Enforcement Activity: The FSC continues to issue notices on licence revocations, including public notices regarding surrender or revocation of licences for global business and investment adviser categories, illustrating ongoing enforcement of supervisory standards.
3. Circular Letters and Guidance:A series of FSC circulars issued in late 2025 and early January 2026 clarify aspects of regulatory expectations and reporting requirements for licensees, reflecting continuous engagement with industry stakeholders to uphold conduct and compliance standards.

These regulatory initiatives align with broader national objectives to modernise the financial services sector, enhance investor confidence, and sustain Mauritius’ reputation as a well-regulated jurisdiction in the global business landscape.

4. Notable Commercial / Judicial Developments in Mauritius

Guarantor Liability Survives Deed of Company Arrangement

While major Commercial Court decisions in early 2026 have not been widely reported in the public domain, it is  worth highlighting decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of  Wong Hee J & Anor v The Mauritius Development Investment Trust Co Ltd (2026 SCJ 1):

Wong Hee J and Anor, the appellants, are 2 directors of a company (the “Company”). The Mauritius Development Investment Trust Co Ltd, the respondent, made available in 2012 certain loan facilities to the Company. The appellants first signed the agreement in their capacity as directors and further on behalf of the company, in their own personal names as guarantors of the loans. In 2016, the Company went into voluntary administration and Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) was entered into to provide “a debt restructuring plan which is aimed at allowing the Company to continue as a going concern for the benefit of its creditors as a whole …”. The DOCA provided that the company would pay only 30% of the sum due to the respondent and that the Company will be released of any claims from the respondent after the payment of the amount of 30%. The respondent turned towards the guarantors and claimed the balance amount from the applicants in their capacity as guarantors. However, the applicants refused based on the provisions of the DOCA stating that any guarantor shall also be released from any liabilities in relation to the claim.  

The central issue in this case was whether the guarantors of the loans are jointly and severally liable to the creditor when the principal debtor of the loans (i.e. the Company) is released from all the claims pursuant to the DOCA.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial Judge and confirmed that a DOCA cannot extinguish a guarantor’s liability under the Mauritius Insolvency Act 2009. The Court reaffirmed that Section 269(2) of the Insolvency Act is mandatory and cannot be overridden by contractual terms in a DOCA, preserving creditors’ rights against guarantors despite restructuring arrangements.

This appellate ruling provides commercial practitioners with clarity on creditor and guarantor rights in insolvency contexts and underscores the judiciary’s approach to maintaining statutory protections over private contractual modifications in insolvency proceedings.