BEPS Multilateral Instrument (MLI), India’s...

BEPS Multilateral Instrument (MLI), India’s Corresponding Positions,

Implementation (GAAR)

Dr. Parthasarathi Shome Chairman

International Tax Research and Analysis Foundation (ITRAF)

www.itraf.org

Visiting Fellow, London School of Economics

Faculty of Law, 2017-18

Recent Developments in Indian Tax Laws, Policy and Practices

Introduction

•  TheOECDtabledtheReport–AddressingBaseErosionandProfitShiftingtotheG20in2013

à  Following this, theOECD andG20 countries adopted a 15 point ActionPlantoaddressBEPS

•  FinalActionreportswereissuedinlate2015.•  TheBEPSpackagewasdesignedtobeimplementedthrough:

à  Changesindomesticlawà Modificationoftreatyprovisions

•  Tohelpwiththe implementationoftheBEPSActions,Action15envisagedtheformulationofaMLI(alsocalledtheConvention)àTheMLIcontainsArticles.TheseareprovisionspertainingtocorrespondingsubjectsofotherBEPSActions

•  Accordingly,welookatsomeoftheActionsandthecorrespondingMLIArticles


Introduction (contd.)

TheOECDMultilateralInstrument(MLI)wassignedbysome70countrieson7June2017 and incorporates treaty measures in relation to several BEPS related areasincluding:

à  HybridMismatch(Action2) àTreatyAbuse(Action6)

à  PermanentEstablishment(Action7) àDisputeResolution(Action14)

PartiestotheMLIarealsorequiredtosubmitanMLIPositiondocumentcontaining:

à  CoveredTaxAgreements(CTAs)–TaxtreatiescoveredbytheMLI

à  Listofreservationsandnotificationsmadebytheparty


Action 2 Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements

à HybridMismatchArrangementsexploitdifferencesinthetaxtreatyofanentityorinstrumentunderthelawsoftwoormoretaxjurisdictionstoachievedoublenon-taxation,includinglongtermdeferral(Action2,2015FinalReport)

à Action 2 aims to ensure that hybrid instruments and entities, as well as dualresidententities,arenotusedtoobtainthebenefitsofatreaty

à Thus Action 2 calls for the development of “model treaty provisions andrecommendationsregardingthedesignofdomesticrulestoneutralisetheeffectsofhybridinstrumentsandentities”


Action 2 Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements (contd.)

MLIPartIIArticle3TransparentEntitiesà  Income derived from an entity or arrangement that is treated as fiscally

transparentbyeitherjurisdictionwhichisapartytotheCTA,shallbeconsideredincomeofaresidentofapartytotheCTA,butonlytotheextentthatthatpartytreatssuchincomeastheincomeofaresident.

à  AtaxexemptionordeductionprovisionofaCTA,totheincomeofaresidentofone jurisdiction, shall not apply solely because the income is also designated‘income’derivedbyaresidentofotherjurisdictionswhicharepartytotheCTA.

IndianPositionàIndiahasreservedtherightstoArticle3initsentirety


MLIPartIIArticle4DualResidentEntitiesà  IfbyvirtueoftheprovisionsofaCTA,aperson(notanindividual)isdeemedto

be a resident ofmore thanone jurisdiction, then theparties to theCTAmustdetermine through mutual agreement which one jurisdiction the person is aresident,forthepurposesoftheCTA.

à  The decision must be made giving regard to the entity’s place of effectivemanagement, the place where the entity is incorporated or otherwiseconstitutedandanyotherrelevantfactors

à  Intheabsenceofsuchagreement,suchpersonshallnotbeentitledtoanyreliefor exemption from tax provided by the CTA except to the extent and in suchmannerasmaybeagreedupon



MLIPartIIArticle4(contd.)

IndianPosition

à  As per Article 4(4) India has listed CTAs containing provisions not subject toreservationsunderArticle4

à  IfalljurisdictionstoaparticularCTAhavealsolistedthesameprovisionthenthesaidprovisionwillbereplacedbytheprovisionofArticle4(1)

à  In all other cases the provision of Article 4(1) shall ‘supersede’ the provisionslistedbyIndia,totheextentthattheCTAprovisionisincompatiblewithArticle4(1)



MLIPartIIArticle5ApplicationofMethodsforEliminationofDoubleTaxationà OptionA:TaxexemptionprovisionsofaCTAexemptingtaxonanincomeofa

residentinonejurisdiction,toeliminatedoubletaxation,shallnotapplyiftheotherjurisdictionhasalsoappliedthesameexemptionprovisiononthesameincome.

à OptionB:TaxexemptionprovisionsofaCTAexemptingtaxonanincomeofaresidentinonejurisdiction,toeliminatedoubletaxationbecausetheincomeistreatedasadividendinthatjurisdiction,shallnotapplyifthatsameincomegivesrisetoadeductionintheincomeofaresidentoftheotherjurisdiction.

à OptionC:Whenaresidentofonejurisdictionderivesincomeorownscapitalwhichmaybetaxedintheotherjurisdiction,thefirstjurisdictionwillallowataxdeductionontheincomeequaltotheincometaxpaidbytheresidentorataxdeductiononthecapitalequaltothecapitalgainstaxpaidbytheresident,inthesecondjurisdiction.

IndianPositionàIndiahasreservedtherightstoArticle5initsentirety



Action 6 Treaty Abuse

à Action 6 identifies Treaty Abuse as an important source of BEPS concerns. It is not surprising that it is a minimum standard reflected as mandatory provisions in MLI Articles 6 and 7

à Action 6 recognizes two instances of Treaty Abuse:

1.  Cases where a person tries to circumvent limitations provided by the treaty itself (eg. treaty shopping)

2.  Cases where a person tries to circumvent the provisions of domestic law using treaty benefits

à Action 6 admits that the first set of cases could not be addressed by specific anti-avoidance rules and required a general anti-avoidance rule in treaties. This is found in the Principal Purpose Test (PPT) and SLOB options in the MLI


Action 6 Treaty Abuse (contd.)

MLIPartIIIArticle6PurposeofaCoveredTaxAgreement(CTA)à  ThefollowingpreambulartextshallbeaddedtoaCTA(Article6(1)):“Intending to eliminate double taxationwith respect to the taxes covered by thisagreement without creating opportunities for non-taxation or reduced taxationthroughtaxevasionoravoidance(includingthroughtreaty-shoppingarrangementsaimed at obtaining reliefs provided in this agreement for the indirect benefit ofresidentsofthirdjurisdictions)”à  This text shall be included in place of or in the absence of any preambular

languageinaCTAreferringtoanintenttoeliminatedoubletaxationà  Asitisaminimumstandardtheonlyreservationallowedisiftherealreadyexists

preambularlanguagedescribingtheintenttoeliminatedoubletaxationwithoutcreatingtheopportunityfortaxevasionoravoidance


MLIPartIIIArticle6(contd.)à  The Article also provides the option of an additional preambular text (Article

6(3)):“Desiring to further develop their economic relationship and to enhance their co-operationintaxmatters,”à  ThistextisoptionalandisonlyapplicableifallpartiestoaCTAchosetoapplyitIndianPositionà  TheIndianpositiondocumentissilentonArticle6à  As a minimum standard the provision in Article 6(1) (mandatory inclusion of

preambulartext)canthereforebetakenasautomaticallyapplicable



MLIPartIIIArticle7PreventionofTreatyAbuseWhilepertaining toaminimumstandard,Article7provides3options to fulfil themandatoryobligationofAction6:Option1PrinciplePurposeTest(PPT):à  AbenefitundertheCTAwillnotbegrantedif it isreasonabletoconcludethat

obtainingthatbenefitwasoneoftheprincipalpurposesofanyarrangementortransactionthatresulteddirectlyorindirectlyinthatbenefit

à  The benefit may yet be granted if, on the request of the person and afterrelevant factsandcircumstancesare taken intoconsideration, it isdeterminedthat the benefit would have been granted in the absence of the transactionunderscrutiny



MLIPartIIIArticle7(contd.)Option2SimplifiedLimitationonBenefitclause(SLOB)(supplementedbythePPT):à  CTAbenefitswillbelimitedtoonlyCTAprovisionswhichprovidethefollowing:

à  If a person is the resident ofmore than one party, then the provisiondetermineswhichparty thepersonwillbeconsidereda residentof, forthepurposesoftheprovision

à  If initial adjustmentsaremadebyotherparties toanenterpriseofoneparty,tothetaxamountonassociatedenterprises,andtheCTAprovidesforcorrespondingadjustments

à  Residents are allowed to request tax authorities of a party to a CTA toconsidertaxcasesnotinaccordancewiththeCTA

à  Unless the resident is designated to be a qualified person as determined byArticle7(9)



MLIPartIIIArticle7(contd.)Option2SimplifiedLimitationonBenefitclause(SLOB)(contd.)Benefitswillalsobeentitled:à Whenaresidentwithan‘activeconductofbusiness’inonejurisdictiontoaCTA,

derivesan income in theother jurisdictionwhich is incidental to thatbusiness(regardlessofwhethertheresidentisaqualifiedperson)(Article7(10))

à When an unqualified resident owns at least 75 per cent of the beneficialinterestsoftheresident,onatleasthalfofthedaysofanytwelve-monthperiod(includingthetimewhenthebenefitwouldotherwisebeaccorded)(Article11)

à  At the discretion of a tax authority, for a resident not entitled to the abovebenefits, ifsuchresidentcandemonstratethatitsprinciplepurposewasnottoattainsuchbenefitfromtheCTA



MLIPartIIIArticle7(contd.)Option3DetailedLOBclauseà  TheMLI does not include a detailed LOB provision. This is because aDetailed

LOBrequiressubstantialbilateralcustomisation,whichwouldbechallenging inthecontextofamultilateralinstrument.(ExplanatoryStatementtotheMLI)

à  OnlypartieswishingtoadoptadetailedLOBprovisionarepermittedtoreserveArticle7 in its entirety.Adetailed LOBmustbe combinedwitheither rules toaddressconduitfinancingstructuresoraprincipalpurposetest(Article7(15)(a))



MLIPartIIIArticle7(contd.)IndianPositionà  IndiahasoptedforthePPTprovisionfor36CTAsandtheSLOBprovisionfor9of

itsCTAs.à While thePPT is automatically applicable as aminimum standard, the SLOB is

onlyapplicableifallpartiestoaCTAoptforthesameà  India has also introduced a general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) in its domestic

law(discussedlater)



Action 7 Permanent Establishment Status

MLI Part IV Article 12 Artificial Avoidance of Permanent Establishment StatusthroughCommissionnaireArrangementsandSimilarStrategies

à Action7lookstoaddresstheartificialavoidanceofpermanentestablishmentstatusthroughcommissionnairearrangements

à Action7definescommissionnairearrangementsas“anarrangementthroughwhichaperson sells products in a given State in its own name but on behalf of a foreignenterprise that is the owner of these products. Through such an arrangement, aforeignenterprise isable tosell itsproducts inaStatewithouthavingapermanentestablishmenttowhichsuchsalesmaybeattributedfortaxpurposes”

à Thusthepersonconcludingthesaledoesnotgettaxedontheprofitsasitdoesnotown the products, but only on the remuneration that it receives for its services,usuallyintheformofacommission.


MLIPartIVArticle12(contd.)

Incontinuation,

à  AnenterprisewillbedeemedtohaveapermanentestablishmentinajurisdictionofaCTAifanypersononbehalfoftheenterprisehabituallyconcludescontracts:

à  Inthenameoftheenterprise;or

à  For the transfer of ownership or the right to use property owned by thatenterprise;or

à  Fortheprovisionofservicesbythatenterpriseà  Unlesstheseactivitiesaredeemednottoconstituteapermanentestablishment

bytheCTA

Action 7 Permanent Establishment Status (contd.)



à  The conditions of establishing permanent establishment in the previous slideshall not apply if the person acting on behalf of an enterprise does so as anindependentagentandintheordinarycourseofthatbusiness

à  Theaboveexclusiondoesnotapply if suchapersonactsexclusivelyoralmostexclusivelyonbehalfofoneormoreenterprisestowhichitiscloselyrelated

IndianPosition

àIndiahasprovidedalistofprovisionscontainedinCTAsdescribingtheconditionforestablishingpermanentestablishment.Article12provisionswillapplyinplaceoftheselistedprovisions.



MLI Part IV Article 13 Artificial Avoidance of Permanent Establishment StatusthroughtheSpecificActivityExemptions

Article13provides2optionsortheoptionnottochooseeither.

OptionA

à  Notwithstanding CTA provisions defining permanent establishment, under theMLI,thetermpermanentestablishmentshallnotinclude

a)theactivitiesdeemednottoconstituteapermanentestablishmentundertheCTA

à  whether or not, under the CTA, that exception from permanentestablishmentstatusiscontingentontheactivitybeingofapreparatoryorauxiliarycharacter,

à  ifsuchactivityisindeedofapreparatoryorauxiliarycharacter




OptionA(contd.)

b) the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for the purpose ofcarryingon,fortheenterprise,anyactivitynotdescribedina.

àifsuchactivityisofapreparatoryorauxiliarycharacter

c) themaintenanceof a fixedplaceofbusiness solely for any combinationofactivitiesmentionedina)andb)

à  iftheoverallactivityofthefixedplaceofbusiness,isofapreparatoryorauxiliarycharacter




OptionB

à  Notwithstanding CTA provisions definingpermanent establishment, under theMLI,thetermpermanentestablishmentshallnotinclude

a) the activities deemed not to constitute a permanent establishment under theCTA

à  whether or not, under the CTA, that exception from permanentestablishmentstatusiscontingentontheactivitybeingofapreparatoryorauxiliarycharacter,

à  except to the extent that the relevant provision of the CTA providesexplicitly that a specific activity shall be deemed not to constitute apermanentestablishmentprovided that theactivity isof apreparatoryorauxiliarycharacter;




OptionB(contd.)

b. the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for the purpose ofcarryingon, for theenterprise, any activitynotdescribed in a), provided thatthisactivityisofapreparatoryorauxiliarycharacter;

c. themaintenanceof a fixedplaceof business solely for any combinationofactivitiesmentionedina)andb),providedthattheoverallactivityofthefixedplaceofbusinessresultingfromthiscombinationisofapreparatoryorauxiliarycharacter.




IndianPosition

à  IndiahasselectedOptionAtoapplytoitsCTAs

à  India has provided a list of CTAs containing similar provisions with thecorrespondingArticleandparagraphnumber

à  OptionAwillonlyapplytoCTAslistedbyIndiaiftheotherpartiestotheCTAalsochoosethesameoption.



IndianDomesticLegislationregardingPlaceofEffectiveManagement(PoEM)

à  FinanceAct2015definedPoEMtobe:

“aplacewherekeymanagementandcommercialdecisions thatarenecessary fortheconductofthebusinessofanentityasawhole,areinsubstancemade.”

à  In 2017 the CBDT issued guiding principles to determine the PoEM for anenterprise



Action 14 Dispute Resolution

à Action 14 recognizes that countering BEPS must be complemented with actions that ensure certainty and predictability for business

à Action 14 identifies mutual agreement procedure (MAP) as an essential complement to BEPS and therefore a minimum standard

à The minimum standard also includes easy access to procedures for the taxpayer, and timely resolution. These standards are evident in Article 16 of the MLI


Action 14 Dispute Resolution (contd.)

MLIPartVArticle16MutualAgreementProcedure(MAP)à  A person agrieved by the taxation in any of the parties to a CTA due to the

provisions of the CTAmay approach the competent authority in either of thejurisdictions even if a remedy is available through the domestic law of thejurisdictionwherethepersonwasagrieved.Partiesmustpresentthecasewithinthreeyearsoftheobjectionbeingraisedbytheperson.

à  If such objection appears justified and the jurisdiction is unable to reach asatisfactorysolution, thecompetentauthoritiesof theparties to theCTAmustaim through mutual agreement to resolve the case with a view to avoidingtaxation not in accordance with the CTA. Agreements reached will beimplementednotwithstandinganytimelimitindomesticlaw.


MLIPartVArticle16(contd.)à  Parties to a CTAmust endeavour to resolve dificulties and doubts in the CTA

throughmutual agreement. Theymayalso consult fordouble taxationoutsidethepurviewoftheCTA

à  Article16pertainstoaminimumstandard.Hencepartiesareallowedtomakevarious reservations to this Article only according to the directions providedwithintheArticle.

Action 14 Dispute Resolution (contd.)


Action 14 Dispute Resolution: Indian position

MLIPartVArticle16(contd.)IndianPositionà  India has reserved the right to the first part of the first provision, thereby

disallowingagrievedpersonstoapproachthecompetentauthorityofanypartytotheCTA(asperArticle16(5)(a)).

à  India reserves this provision on the basis (as permitted by the MLI) that itintends to meet the minimum standard by allowing the resident of thejurisdiction, agrieved by a provision of the CTA, to approach the competentauthorityofthatparticularjurisdiction(insteadofeitherjurisdiction).

à  In the case of provisions based on nationality, residents will be allowed toapproach the competent authority of the jurisdiction where the nationalbelongs.


Action 14 Dispute Resolution: Indian position (contd.)

à  India has listed CTAs containing provisions similar to the second sentence ofArticle16(1)withatimeframeoflessthan3years(casestobepresentedwithin3years)

à  India has listed CTAs containing provisions similar to the second sentence ofArticle16(1)withatimeframeofatleast3years(casestobepresentedwithin3years)

à  India has listed CTAs not containing provisions similar to the first sentence ofArticle16(2)(casestobesolvedbymutualagreementbetweenparties)

à  IndiahaslistedCTAsnotcontainingprovisionssimilartothesecondsentenceofArticle 16(2) (mutual agreement to be implementednotwithstanding any timelimitindomesticlaw)

à  India has listed CTAs not containing provisions similar to the first sentence ofArticle16(3) (resolving issuesof interpretationorapplicationofCTAprovisionsthroughmutualagreement)

à  IndiahaslistedCTAsnotcontainingprovisionssimilartothesecondsentenceofArticle16(3)(consultationregardingcasesnotprovidedforbytheCTA)


Indian Domestic Legislation on Treaty Abuse

GeneralAnti-AvoidanceRule(GAAR)à  IndiaappliedGAARfrom1April2017à  TheGAARcomplementstheprovisionscombattingtreatyabuseintheMLIà  Anti avoidance rules allow authorities to analyse agreements and transactions

thanwaspreviouslypermittedà  GAAR and similar provisions are formulated to impact companies which lack

substance


Indian Domestic Legislation on Treaty Abuse

GeneralAnti-AvoidanceRule(GAAR)(contd.)à  AccordingtotheIndianGAAR:

à  An arrangement may be declared an impermissible avoidancearrangement

à  Suchanarrangementshallbepresumed(unlessproventothecontrary)tohavebeenenteredintoforthemainpurposeofobtainingataxbenefit

à  Consequencesof such an arrangementwould include thedenial of anytreatybenefit

à  ThemainpurposetestissimilartothePPTmandatedbyAction6


Indian Domestic Legislation on Treaty Abuse (contd.)

GeneralAnti-AvoidanceRule(GAAR)(contd.)à  Animpermissibleavoidanceagreementisdefinedtobeanarrangement:

à  Themainpurposeofwhichistoobtainataxbenefità Which creates rights or obligations not ordinarily creates between

personsdealingatarm’slengthà WhichresultsinthemisuseorabuseoftheprocisionsoftheIncomeTax

Actà Whichlackscommercialsubstanceinwholeorinpartà  Is enetered into or carried out bymeans or in amanner not ordinarily

employedforbonafidepurpose



ComparisonofShomeCommitteeReportandtheIndianGAARDefinitionofImpermissibleAvoidanceArrangementsProvisionofDraftGAAR:“Animpermissibleavoidancearrangementmeansanarrangement,themainpurposeoroneofthemainpurposesofwhichistoobtainataxbenefit[…]”ShomePanelrecommendation:TheCommitteerecommendsthattheActmaybeamendedtoprovidethatonlyarrangementswhichhavethemainpurpose(andnotoneofthemainpurposes)ofobtainingtaxbenefitshouldbecoveredunderGAAR.à ThefinalGAARprovisionimplementedtheaboverecommendation:““Animpermissibleavoidancearrangementmeansanarrangement,themainpurposeofwhichistoobtainataxbenefit[…]”



ComparisonofShomeCommitteeReportandtheIndianGAAR(contd.)ConsequenceofImpermissibleAvoidanceArrangementsProvisionofDraftGAAR:“anarrangementshallbepresumedtohavebeenenteredinto,orcarriedout,forthemainpurposeofobtainingataxbenefit,ifthemainpurposeofastepin,orapartof,thearrangementistoobtainataxbenefit,notwithstandingthefactthatthemainpurposeofthewholearrangementisnottoobtainataxbenefit.”(ShomePanelReport)ShomePanelrecommendation:“Whereonlyapartofthearrangementisimpermissible,thetaxconsequencesofan“impermissibleavoidancearrangement”willbelimitedtothatportionofthearrangement.”



ComparisonofShomeCommitteeReportandtheIndianGAAR(contd.)ConsequenceofImpermissibleAvoidanceArrangementsFinalGAARProvision:“98(1)Ifanarrangementisdeclaredtobeanimpermissibleavoidancearrangement,then,theconsequences,inrelationtotax,ofthearrangement,includingdenialoftaxbenefitorabenefitunderataxtreaty,shallbedetermined,[…]bywayof[…]:(a)disregarding,combiningorrecharacterisinganystepin,orapartorwholeof,theimpermissibleavoidancearrangement[…]”



ComparisonofShomeCommitteeReportandtheIndianGAAR(contd.)OnusoftheRevenue ProvisionsofdraftGAAR:“97(4)Thefollowingshallnotbetakenintoaccountwhiledeterminingwhetheranarrangementlackscommercialsubstanceornot,namely:—(i)theperiodortimeforwhichthearrangement(includingoperationstherein)exists;(ii)thefactofpaymentoftaxes,directlyorindirectly,underthearrangement;(iii)thefactthatanexitroute(includingtransferofanyactivityorbusinessoroperations)isprovidedbythearrangement.”ObservationofShomePanel:DraftprovisionswereindirectconflictofSupremeCourt:“Revenue/Courtsshouldkeepinmindthefollowingfactors:theconceptofparticipationininvestment,thedurationoftimeduringwhichtheHoldingStructureexists;theperiodofbusinessoperationsinIndia;thegenerationoftaxablerevenuesinIndia;thetimingoftheexit;thecontinuityofbusinessonsuchexit.Inshort,theonuswillbeontheRevenuetoidentifytheschemeanditsdominantpurpose.”



ComparisonofShomeCommitteeReportandtheIndianGAAR(contd.)OnusoftheRevenue(contd.) RecommendationoftheShomePanel:“(i)theperiodoftimeforwhichthearrangement(includingtheoperationstherein)exists;(ii)thefactofpaymentoftaxes,directlyorindirectly,underthearrangement;(iii)thefactthatanexitroute(includingtransferofanyactivityorbusinessoroperations)isprovidedbythearrangement.”arerelevantbutmaynotbesufficientandthesefactorswillbetakenintofullaccountinformingaholisticassessmenttodeterminewhetheranarrangementlackscommercialsubstance.WhentheAssessingOfficerinformstheassesseeinhisinitialintimationinvokingGAAR,heshouldincludehowtheabovefactors(i)to(iii)havebeenconsideredandwhytheyfailtoconvincetheAssessingOfficerthatGAARshouldnotbeappliedintheparticularcase.”



ComparisonofShomeCommitteeReportandtheIndianGAAR(contd.)OnusoftheRevenue(contd.)àFinalGAARprovisionwassimilartotheShomePanelrecommendation“97(4)Fortheremovalofdoubts,itisherebyclarifiedthatthefollowingmayberelevantbutshallnotbesufficientfordeterminingwhetheranarrangementlackscommercialsubstanceornot,namely:—(i)theperiodortimeforwhichthearrangement(includingoperationstherein)exists;(ii)thefactofpaymentoftaxes,directlyorindirectly,underthearrangement;(iii)thefactthatanexitroute(includingtransferofanyactivityorbusinessoroperations)isprovidedbythearrangement.”


International Treaty modification on Treaty Abuse

à  GAARlikerulesinprevalenttreaties(eg.IndianDTAAswithUK,Norway,Poland,UAE)

à  Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements modified to include LOB clause (e.g.

IndianDTAAswithMauritius,Cyprus,Singapore)à  DTAA clause allowing domestic GAAR to override DTAA provisions (e.g Indian

DTAAswithLuxembourg, Malaysiaetc.)

Thank you

[email protected]

International Tax Research and Analysis Foundation (ITRAF)

www.itraf.org

BEPS Multilateral Instrument (MLI), India’s...

Documents

Transcript of BEPS Multilateral Instrument (MLI), India’s...