India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India

Q: How many judgments cite India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India?

295 judgments on BharatTax cite India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India (341 ITR 1), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 234B, Section 144C(13), Section 147, Section 148, Section 234A.

341 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2012#263 most cited

What is India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India authority for?

Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

295

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vodafone International Holdings v. UOI · India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan · 341 ITR 1 SC · tax planning permissible · look at test · DTAA benefits · Mauritius treaty · TRC validity · separate entity principle · corporate taxation · Section 90

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234B Section 144C(13)Section 147 Section 148 Section 234A Section 234C Section 151

Issues it is cited on

treaty benefits azadi bachao andolan trc tax treaty permanent establishment section 90 short term capital gain non-resident liable to tax fair market value section 115j final assessment order

Judgments citing India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India

JAN KALYAN SAMITI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5120/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 13Section 13(2)(e)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

…nner provided by its articles, and are not of the nature of real estate." The aforesaid principles of respecting the distinct corporate identity was 12 reiterated by the Supreme Court in the decision of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. UOI reported in 341 ITR 1, wherein the Court held that companies and other entities are viewed as economic entities with legal independence vis-a-vis their shareholders/participants. It has been held therein as under: "International tax aspects of holding structures 65.In the thirteenth century, Pope Innocent IV espoused the theory of the legal fiction by saving that corp…

PROPERTY PLUS REALTORS,DELHI vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI 2, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3406/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263

…ITA Nos.3406 & 3407/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3406 & 3407/Del/2025 [Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22] Property Plus Realtor vs PCIT(Central) 5216-A, Basant Road Delhi-2 A. K. Market S.O, Paharganj Delhi-110055 PAN-AATFP6793Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri Deepak Kapoor, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT DR Date of Hearing 25.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.01.2026 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against t…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1549/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate and Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

…equitable considerations are irrelevant in interpreting tax laws but those laws like all other laws have to be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 341 ITR 1 (SC) emphasized that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly and that legislative silence cannot be construed as a prohibition unless expressly stated. 11.5. Further, Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Petroleum India International [2013] 29 taxmann.com 250 (Bom) had before it, one of the substantial questions o…

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1397/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

…equitable considerations are irrelevant in interpreting tax laws but those laws like all other laws have to be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 341 ITR 1 (SC) emphasized that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly and that legislative silence cannot be construed as a prohibition unless expressly stated. 11.5. Further, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Petroleum India International [2013] 29 taxmann.com 250 (Bom) had before it, one of the substantial questions o…

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2767/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)

…ntinued\nenhancement of exposure, and the long period of non-payment of interest collectively\nshow that the real arrangement is that of a long-term, high-risk, quasi-equity funding,\nrather than a short-term, regularly serviced, floating-rate loan.\n¹[(2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC)]\n30\nI.T.A. No. 2364/Mum/2025\nI.T.A. No. 2365/Mum/2025\nI.T.A. No. 2366/Mum/2025\nI.T.A. No. 2367/Mum/2025\nI.T.A. No. 2767/Mum/2025\nC.O. No. 112/Mum/2025\nC.O. No. 111/Mum/2025\nC.O. No. 113/Mum/2025\nC.O. No. 114/Mum/2025\nC.O. No. 115/Mum/2025\n9. It is in this factual context that the benchmarking adopted by the assessee must be\nexamin…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2366/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)

RAVI SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 25(3), MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI

In the result, all remaining ground are allowed with the aforesaid directions

ITA 4186/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 254(1)Section 28Section 28(1)

…Mudaliar (1967 64 ITR 213 (Mad),  Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co Vs CIT (1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC),  CIT Vs Best and Co. (1966) 60 ITR 11(SC),  DCIT Vs Sandeep Dave (2019 109 taxmann.com 138 (Raipur-Trb),  Vodafone International Holding Limited Vs Union of India (341 ITR 1 SC),  Govindlal Mandhana Vs Add CIT in ITA No(s)3881, 3877, 3095, 3906/ Mum/2010 dated 15.02.2012,  Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT (2010) 126 ITD 100 (Mum) 11 Ravi shroff (AY 2015-16) 8. On the other hand, the ld CIT–DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the stand of the assessee t…

DCIT CIRCLE 61(1), DELHI vs. SUKHBIR SINGH CHABRA HUF, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.315/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Sukhbir Singh Chabra Huf Circle 61(1), Vs. 6, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. Motia Khan, Delhi. Pan No.Aaahs5683P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 92C

…hether the transaction is a tax deferment / saving device, rather, it has to apply the "look at test" to ascertain the true legal nature, for genuine strategic tax planning is permissible, as has been held in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. UOI (2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC). At page 108 of the report, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "that every tax payer is entitled to arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible and that he is not bound to choose that pattern which will replenish the treasury. Revenue's stand that the ratio laid down in McDowell is contrary to what has been laid down i…

ROHIT PRAKASHCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 128/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 147Section 148

…ansactions a facade of genuineness is created and in order to unravel the truth one has to go behind such facade. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 17 taxmann.com 202/204 Taxman 408/341 ITR 1 (SC) that the Revenue may invoke the "substance over form" principle or "piercing the corporate veil" test after it is able to establish on the basis of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction that the impugned transaction is a sham or tax avoidant. 10.5 When we examine the evidences brought on record the first question that arises…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…the group which appointment him. With this basic position, there can be no room for compromise.” Further, reference is made to the following pertinent observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs UOI and Anr. : 341 ITR 1 : “66.The approach of both the corporate and tax laws, particularly in the matter of corporate taxation, generally is founded on the abovementioned separate entity principle, i.e., treat a company as a separate person. The Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, in the matter of corporate taxation, is founded on the principle of the independence of companies…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

SKY HIGH II LEASING COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX) CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1550/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1546/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sky High Lxxix Leasing Co. Ltd., The ACIT (IT), Circle-4(2)(1), Room No. 627, 6th Floor, 2, Grand Canal Square, Grand Canal Harbour, Dublin D02 A342, Vs. Kautalya Bhavan, G. Block, Ireland, State outside India-D02 A342. Bandra Kurla Complex, PAN: ABFCS0570G Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1547/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sky High XC Leasing Co. Ltd., The ACIT (IT), Circle-4(2)(1), Room No. 627, 6th Floor, 2, Grand C…

SKY HIGH LXXX LEASING COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX) CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1549/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

SKY HIGH LXXVIII LEASING COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX) CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1548/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

SKY HIGH LXXIX LEASING COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX) CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1546/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

EBAY SINGAPORE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2378/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)Section 253

…ate Limited 5.7 The Ld.Sr.Counsel relied on Circular 789 dated 13/04/2010 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes(hereinafter referred to as CBDT) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1, where in it was held that a TRC should constitute sufficient evidence for accepting status of residence and beneficial ownership for applying provisions of tax treaty. It is submitted that the assessee has valid TRC from the Singapore tax authorities. Thus, the assessee qualifies as a tax resident of Singapore and the authorities cannot go behind…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GANDHI REALITY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT. (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 230

…Areva T & D India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 345 ITR 421 (Delhi HC) (viii)Toyo Engineering India Limited v DCIT, BOM (33 taxmann.com 560) (Mumbai) (ix)UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706) (SC) (x)Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 341 ITR 1 (SC) (xi)CIT v. Motors & General Stores (P.) Ltd [1967] 66 ITR 692 (SC) Gandhi Reality(I) Pvt. Ltd (xii)Dalmia Power Ltd. v. ACIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 252 (SC) (xiii)Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. v. Department of income tax [2012] 24 taxmann.com 323 (Guj.) 30. We note that merger was not intended for providing any financial stability to the trans…

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG

Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

…and consequently the capital gains would not have been taxable in India on such sale of shares:  the explanation as to how the Appellant's case satisfies the tests/parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings BV v UOI (341 ITR 1) (SC) for investment participation in India. 17. erred in incorrectly stating that the Appellant has made general submissions and that the Appellant has not disputed the facts brought on record and erred in incorrectly stating that the Appellant has failed to rebut various specific findings made by the AO; 18. erred in holding that the Appellant ha…

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 339/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG

Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

…and consequently the capital gains would not have been taxable in India on such sale of shares: • the explanation as to how the Appellant's case satisfies the tests/parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings BV v UOI (341 ITR 1) (SC) for investment participation in India. 17. erred in incorrectly stating that the Appellant has made general submissions and that the Appellant has not disputed the facts brought on record and erred in incorrectly stating that the Appellant has failed to rebut various specific findings made by the AO; 18. erred in holding that the Appellant ha…

SHENHZHEN SDG INFORMATION CO. LTD.,DELHI vs. CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 3(1)(2), DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/O- Tass Advisors Llp, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aavcs7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 Order

Section 263Section 44B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘d’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shenhzhen SDG Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/o- Tass Advisors LLP, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi PAN: AAVCS7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department by Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 10.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 05.06.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This asse…

Showing 1–20 of 295 · Page 1 of 15

...