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

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

…s liable to pay tax, and second, if he is so liable, he is liable to deduct tax depending on the rate mentioned in the DTAA. GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (R) LTD. v. CIT [20101 327 ITR 456 (SC) and VODAFONE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS B. V. V. UNION OF LNDJA [20121 341 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. The argument based on article 30 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the United States of America that the DTAA's provisions in these cases would not apply at all, inasmuch as the provisions relatable to deduction of tax at source under section 195 of the Act do not refer to tax at all, but are deductions th…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/26/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…ext topic namely when civil consequences entails rules of natural justice must be complied with, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 40 (2004) 10 SCC 1 41 (2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC) 42 (2015) SCC Online Hyd. 1021 43 (1936) AC - 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 50 of 150 Sahara India Versus CIT 44 and Kothari Filaments Versus CC 45. It is further submitted that in spite of specific request made by the assessee to provide the persons from whom statements were recorded for cross examination, they have no…

Surya Kant Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 4(2), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7828/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 55(2)(aa)

…is genuine and treated as proper variation, even if entered with a motive to avoid tax would not become colourable device special to any disqualification. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Vodafone International Holdings B V Vs. UOI (2012) 341 ITR 1 (Supreme Court) (ii) CIT Vs. Walfort Shares and Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. (201) 326 ITR 1 (Supreme Court) (iii)UOI Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (Supreme Court) (iv) Porrits & Spencerr (Asia) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 222 (P &H High Court) (v) Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT(1996) 222 ITR 831 (Gujrat High Court ) (vi) CIT Vs. Special Prints Ltd…

Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6531/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 143

…n. 13. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in case of Heresh W. Chadha L/H of late W. N. Chadha vs DCIT (2011) 43 SOT 544(Del). Further, relying upon the decision of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs UOI (2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC) and applying the test/ratio laid down therein to ascertain whether the transaction entered into by the assessee relating to purchase and sale of share is bonafide or not, learned departmental representative submitted, very fact that the assessee had purchased the shares at huge premium as against similar shares sold at par value to other share…

Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1881/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 5

…ss of the agreement entered between two unrelated parties could not have been altered. This has been so held by the Apex Court in its judgment reported in 263 ITR 706 in the case of UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and reiterated in the later judgment reported in 341 ITR 1 in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. UOI (SC). The Ld. AR further contended that it is well settled rule of law that ‘given that a document or transaction is genuine, the court cannot go behind it to some supposed underlying substance’. The Ld. AR contended that the transaction of sale of shares was between two unrelated parties…

Interworlds Shipping Agency Llc Dubai Uae, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 7805/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 90

…TR 706 (SC)], ITA No. 7805/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 3 of 9 the Assessing Officer referred to, and emphatically relied upon, a subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings BV Vs Union of India [(2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC)]. He was of the view that the only purpose of the assessee company was to avail of the benefits of the Indo UAE tax treaty. He then referred to ‘look at’ principle in the Vodafone judgment, and noted that even the tax residency certificates of the partners were not provided to the Assessing Officer. He further noted that it was a clear case of…

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2014-15 M/s. Ruchi J Oil Pvt. Ltd, PCIT, C/o P.D. Nagar & Co, Ujjain Chartered Accountants, Vs. 403, City Plaza, 564 M.G. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN:AAGCR4475D Appellant by Shri P.D. Nagar, CA Respondent by Shri S.S. Mantri, CIT Date of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 25.03.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD: The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Official Liquidator…

M/S Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-18(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

…e or complete under the general law.”(emphasis supplied) 3.69 He relied on the following case laws:- (a) In respect of that the document should be understood from the point of view of parties concerned. (i) Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. UOI [(2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC)] (ii) Ishikawajma Harima Heavy Industries Limited v. DIT [(2007) 288 ITR 408 (SC)] (i) CIT v. Motor General Stores [(1967) 66 ITR 692 (SC)] (ii)ITO v. Vikas Bahal [(2010) 131 TTJ 229 (ITAT Kolkata) In the case of Ishikawajma Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: Section(s): Income-tax Act, 1961,…

M/S. Joy Global (Uk) Limited, (Formerly Knows As Joy Mining Machinery Limited), Kolkatta vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxn.)-2, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2891/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2891/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 M/S Joy Global(Uk) Limited, A.C.I.T., (Formerly Known As Joy Mining Vs. International Taxation)-2, Machinery Limited) Ahmedabad. C/O Joy Global (India) Ltd.,, 85/1, Topsia Road (South), Kolkata-700046. Pan: Aaccj3893R

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT.D.R
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 9(1)

…t was not be apposite to consider the contract as a composite one for the purposes of imposition of tax under the [Para 82] The Authority referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone. international Hold B. \/, v. Union of India [2012] 341 ITR 1/204 Taxrnan 408/17 taxmann.com 202 in support o/ its view that in law the liability for performance, of the Contract by 'L ' and Y was joint and severable, the contract must read as on indivisible one for the purposes of tax. [Para 83). The approach as well as the conclusion of the Authority is flawed. The Authority erred in proceeding or basis tha…

ACIT, Central Circle, Bikaner vs. M/S. Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Bikaner

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 482/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

Section 131

…y furnishing positive evidence and not on hypothetical assessment of the real motive of the assessee. In this connection decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of UOI Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. UOI 341 ITR 1 may be referred which have distinguished the decision of McDowells & Co. vs. CTO 154 ITR 148. 4. It is submitted that the determination of income of Rs. 2,43,59,629/- made by the AO is hypothetical by assuming that assessee has sold 2236.50 quintals of Gwar on 13.02.2012 @ Rs. 14,000/- per quintal. There is no basis 10 ITA 482/Jodh/2018 ACIT Vs M/…

Essar Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, additional ground No

ITA 1942/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43BSection 92BSection 92C(2)

…Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shiv Raj Gupta in ITA No. 41/2002 dated 22.12.2014, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has elaborately dealt with the ratios of the decisions in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. versus Union of India,[2012] 341 ITR 1 (SC), McDowell and Co. Ltd. versus Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) and Union of India versus Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), and also 11 M/s. Aaradhana Realities Ltd. (formerly known as Essar Investments Ltd.) dealt with the principles laid down in the case of IRC v. Duke of Westminster,[1936 AC 1 (HL)], Ramsay [(1981)…

M/S Ecorys Nederlands B.V., Delhi vs. ADIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 6494/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT (DR)
Section 40

…in law the Ld. CITA while sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 4 8,34,669/- did not appreciated that at the time when foreign professionals give their services u/s 195, payments made outside India were not included as clarified by apex court in Vodafone’s case (341 ITR 1). 2.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITA while sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 48,34,669/- did not appreciated that unamended Article 12 (or Article 14) of India- Netherland’s DTAA, only taxed services rendered in India. 2.4 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT…

Augustus Capital Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8084/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla[A.Y 2015-16] Augustus Capital Pte Ltd Vs. The Dy.C.I.T 24, Raffles Place Circle 1(1) 10-5, Clifford Centre International Taxation Singapore New Delhi Pan: Aabcg 4223 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Adv Shri K.M. Gupta, Adv Shri Rishab Malhotra Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(i)

…ance Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01-04-1962. At this point, it would be pertinent to mention that provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act were amended to obviate the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. 341 ITR 1 (SC). 21. Explanation 5 reads as under: “Explanation 5.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that an asset or a capital asset being any share or interest in a company or entity registered or incorporated outside India shall be deemed to be and shall always be deemed to have been situated in India, if the share or interest derives, d…

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas (Special Counsel of Deptt)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 220(2)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…re and investment through Mauritius based entities (in respect of which additions has been made under section 68 of the Act) has already been validated by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the landmark judgment in the case of Vodafone International Holding B.V v UOI (341 ITR 1) – refer page 30 and 31 of the case law wherein the investment structure has been reproduced. The structure clearly identifies:  Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd, as the ultimate holding company;  Hutchison Telecommunications International (Cayman) Holdings Limited, as an intermediate holding company; and  8 Hutchison group entiti…

Carestream Health Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 826/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Carestream Health Inc Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of C/O. Carestream Health Income Tax, Range-2(1)(1) India Private Limited Scindia House, M.M.Road Sunteck Centre Ballard Pier 1St Floor, Subhash Road Mumbai – 400 028 Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aaecc6050H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(22)(d)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 48

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM M/s. Carestream Health INC Vs. Dy. Commissioner of C/o. Carestream Health Income Tax, Range-2(1)(1) India Private Limited Scindia House, M.M.Road Sunteck Centre Ballard Pier 1st Floor, Subhash Road Mumbai – 400 028 Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 400 057 PAN/GIR No. AAECC6050H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue by Shri Padmapani Bora Date of Hearing 29/07/2019 & 08/11/2019 Date of Pronouncement 06/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.826/Mum/2…

Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2177/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas, D.R &
Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…d as sham transactions just because there is a lower outflow of taxes. The Ld. A.R. placed reliance on the decision of UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) and the Ld. A.R. also referred to Vodafone International Holdings vs. UOI (2012) 341 ITR 1 SC wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the correct interpretation of Mc Dowell & Company Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148 SC that legitimate tax planning can not be considered as sham. The Ld. A.R. also relied on a series of other decisions namely; i) CIT vs. Hede Consultancy Co. (P.) Ltd. (2015) 231 Taxman 421 (Bom…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Frontier Offshore Exploration (India) Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1006/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1006/Chny/2016 धनिाजरण वर्ज Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. A. Sundararajan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: None
Section 44B

…ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 327 ITR 456 as also the decision in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V vs. Union of India reported in 341 ITR 1 the revenue is in appeal. 5. The learned Department Representative submitted that the provision of Section 44BB applied. It was a submission that the issue was now squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of :- 4 -: this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in I.T.A. No.200/Mds/2009 vide order dated 4th February, 2011, wherein it h…

Smt. Kavita Dipesh Shah, Surat vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.219/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Kavita Dipesh Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat. [Pan: Anhps 4998 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P. Singh, Cit(D.R.)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57Section 8D

…Kavita Dipesh Shah v. Pr. CIT-2 Surat /ITA No.219/SRT/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 Page 1 of 16 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.219/SRT/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Kavita Dipesh Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner of 1, Vishal House, Next to Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat. [PAN: ANHPS 4998 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shri O.P…

Shri Dipesh L. Shah, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.218/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Dipesh L Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road Surat [Pan: Afsps 3839J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57Section 8D

…placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Srishti Securities (P) Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 0498 (Bombay) and also the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India (2012) 341 ITR 1(SC) and submitted that dividend income Dipesh L Shah v. Pr. CIT-2 Surat /ITA No.218/SRT/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 Page 7 of 15 was taxable income during year under consideration, therefore any interest expenditure was allowable u/s.57(iii) of the Act.The ld. counsel further placing reliance in the decision of ITAT ‘C’ Bench, Bombay in ITA No.4649/MUM…

M/S. Joy Global (Uk) Limited, (Formerly Knows As Joy Mining Machinery Limited), Kolkatta vs. The DCIT (Int. Taxn.)-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2008/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar & Parin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Subhash Bains, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 195(2)Section 244ASection 44D

…it was not be apposite to consider the contract as a composite one for the purposes of imposition of tax under the [Para 82]. The Authority referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Hold B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 341 ITR 1/204 Taxman 408/17 taxmann.com 202 in support of its view that in law the liability for performance of the Contract by 'L' and 'S' was joint and severable, the contract must read as an indivisible one for the purposes of tax. [Para 83]. The approach as well as the conclusion of the Authority is flawed. The Authority erred in proceeding or basis tha…