Azadi Bachao Andolan & Others v. Union

256 ITR 563Reported decision#24159 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 56(1)Section 68 Section 69C

Judgments citing Azadi Bachao Andolan & Others v. Union

VENUS DRUGS AND COSMETICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WORD-8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appe

ITA 5933/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: None

Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Venus Drugs and Cosmetics Ltd., ITO, Ward 8(3)(1), 320-B, 3rd floor, Aurus Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S Amrutwar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. PAN NO. AAACV 3569 L Appellant Respondent : None Assessee by Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR : 17/11/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 26/11/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 31.07.2025 passed by th…

ITO 7(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. HECKYL TECHNOLGIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3087/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-7(1)(3) M/S Heckyl Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Unit No.1002, 10Th Floor Room No.11, Ground Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, W, Supreme Business Park Mumbai- 400020 Hiranandani Garden Powai, Mumbai-400 076

For Appellant: Shri Piyus ChhajjedFor Respondent: Shri R.Bhupathi

Section 100Section 143(3)Section 56(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68Section 78(2)

…. He has then cited the ratio of, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell (158 ITR 148) to demonstrate that what the appellant has done is to use a colourable device. He has then cited the decision of Azadi Bachao Andolan & Others v. Union of india (256 ITR 563). He has then proceeded to cite the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hillcrest Reality SON BHD v. Ram Parshotam Mittal (supra) which had dealt with the issue of the utilisation of money raised by way of share premium for purposes other than those specified in section 78(2) of Companies Act, 1956. He has then travelled to th…

CREDIT SUISSE BUSINESS ANALYSTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT.CIT- 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 993/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-DR

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 78

…value of shares could be taken only at Rs. 10 per share, that the receipt of use premium of Rs. 187/- per-share was a device to avoid tax. He relied upon the cases of McDowell (154 ITR 148), Banyan and Berry (222 ITR 831) and Azadi Bachao Andolan and others (256 ITR 563) and held that the intention behind the transaction would be the guiding factor to decide as to whether the judicial process could approve the transaction. He also analyse the provisions of section 78 of the Companies Act(CA)and examined as to whether the premium collected by the assessee had been utilised as per the conditions laid down in the s…