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

341 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2012#264 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 367,368 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 234BSection 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234CSection 151

Issues it is cited on

treaty benefitsazadi bachao andolantrctax treatypermanent establishmentsection 90short term capital gainnon-residentliable to taxfair market valuesection 115jfinal assessment order

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

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1667/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1665/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1664/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1663/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1662/CHNY/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1627/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1624/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1623/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1622/CHNY/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2372/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1675/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1674/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1619/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1618/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

…t the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010) 329 ITR 126. Since the judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court (reported in (2012) 341 ITR 1), the entire basis of finding of the CIT(Appeals) would no longer exist. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the CIT(Appeals)’s order cannot stand in the eye of law after the reversal of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Vodafone by the Supreme Court. Since the non-resident re-insurance company operates outside the country, t…

Emami Indrastructure Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 880/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri R.N. Bajoria, Sr. Counsel, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Mishra, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ot quoted on stock exchange. Hence, I am of the view that the shares were correctly valued by the AO by taking average purchase price of 'the share on stock exchange on the date of sale. ii) In the case of Vodafone International Holding BV vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained it's earlier decision in the case of McDowell & Company Ltd. reported in 154 ITR 148 and has held that there is no conflict between the ratio of McDowell viz-a-viz Azadi Bachao and Mathuram Agarwal. Accordingly the colourable device made with the object of avoidance of tax without any commercial substance not…

Wadhwa & Associates Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 967/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Wadhwa & Associates Asst. Commissioner Of Income Realtors Private Limited Tax 9(3) 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Mumbai. Plot C-59, G Block, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 Pan:Aaacw5273G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate & Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Patankar Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 115JSection 44ASection 79

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Wadhwa & Associates Asst. Commissioner of Income Realtors Private Limited Tax 9(3) 301, 3rd Floor, Platina, Mumbai. Plot C-59, G Block, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 PAN:AAACW5273G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate & Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, CA Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Patankar Date of Hearing : 29.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2018 O R D E R Per D.T. GARASIA, Jud…

Renault India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1078/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1078/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Renault India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.37 & 38, Asv Ramana Corporate Circle 5(1) Towers, Chennai. 4Th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.N Agar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aadcr 2042M ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144C(5)

…racter of the assessee and the other enterprise, due to the influence of the agreement :- 24 -: between foreign holding companies, because when we examine the instant case in the light of the decision of Vodafone International Holdings BV vs UOI, reported in 341 ITR 1(SC), we find the ratio decidendi emerging is, if there are two separate but related entities, their separate legal character cannot be disregarded under normal circumstances. This can only be done where the revenue positively proves the factum of influence of foreign AE over the affairs of the domestic entity. We also find, as an undisputed fact by…

Analjit Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4737/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50D

…ecial Counsel of the Revenue during the course of oral arguments, the captioned write up on the structure of Hutchison Group has been drawn from the written statements filed by Vodafone Group in their SLP filed before the Supreme Court in the case reported at 341 ITR 1. Even the preamble to the aforesaid write up categorically provides that the same has been prepared on the basis of public record and other information available in the public domain, which reads as under:- i. As far as the information relating to the structure of Hutchison Group (as defined below), and its acquisition of interests pertaining to th…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Neovia Logistics Services India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1945/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mrs. G. Aparna Rao, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Girish S. Sundar, C.A
Section 10ASection 260A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1945/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2011-2012. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s. Neovia Logistics Services of Income Tax, India Private Limited (formerly Corporate Circle 4(2) known as M/s. Caterpillar Logistics Chennai 600 034 Services (India) Private Limited, 7th floor, International Tech. Park, Taramani Road, Taramani, Chenn…