KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51

10 SCC 1Supreme Court of India2014#336 most cited

What is KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51 authority for?

A valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) serves as conclusive proof of an assessee's residency for the purpose of availing treaty benefits, unless specific instances of fraud or treaty shopping are proven by the revenue authorities.

250

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan · Azadi Bachao Andolan · 10 SCC 1 · Tax Residency Certificate · TRC · conclusive proof of residency · treaty benefits · Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement · DTAA · treaty shopping · fraud

Sections most often in play

Section 1894Section 1961Section 270ASection 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 45(5)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 14

Issues it is cited on

section 2(viii)section 56(viii)section 45(5)(c)section 155(16)section 23(1a)section 104section 45(5)(b)section 145b(1)section 194lakeyman insurancesection 160section 23(2)

Judgments citing KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

C.A. No.-000262-000262 - 2026Supreme Court15 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

…evidence. 6.15. The High Court, relying on the decisions of this Court in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan14 and Vodafone reiterated that the mere fact that an entity is located in Mauritius, or that investments were routed through that 14 (2004) 10 SCC 1 24 jurisdiction, cannot by itself lead to an adverse inference. The High Court further found that Mauritius has long been recognised as a favourable investment destination and that “treaty shopping” per se is not impermissible unless it is clearly shown to be a device for tax evasion or contrary to the intent of the treaty. The issuance of…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5031/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…cquisition price of the Jorbagh price at Rs.75 Crores was far in excess of the market value which stood about Rs.28 Crores. We have also noted that reliance of ld. AO upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of McDowell Case 3 SCC 230, Azadi Bachao 10 SCC 1 and Mathuram Agarwal 8 SCC 667 Page 49 of 54 ITA Nos.5029 & 5031/Del/2024 & CO No.42/Del/2025 holding that a colourable device cannot be a part of tax planning while concluding that the impugned transactions were sham transactions and lacking any legitimacy is correct. We have also noted that the sale of Jorbagh property for Rs.31,50,00,000/- so…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5029/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…cquisition price of the Jorbagh price at Rs.75 Crores was far in excess of the market value which stood about Rs.28 Crores. We have also noted that reliance of ld. AO upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of McDowell Case 3 SCC 230, Azadi Bachao 10 SCC 1 and Mathuram Agarwal 8 SCC 667 Page 49 of 54 ITA Nos.5029 & 5031/Del/2024 & CO No.42/Del/2025 holding that a colourable device cannot be a part of tax planning while concluding that the impugned transactions were sham transactions and lacking any legitimacy is correct. We have also noted that the sale of Jorbagh property for Rs.31,50,00,000/- so…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, NEW DELHI vs. CLIFFORD CHANCE PTE LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/354/2025HC Delhi04 Dec 2025

Bench: Us Is For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 & I.T.A. 353/2025 Is For Ay 2021-22.

For Appellant: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC, Mr. Ashvini Kr., MrFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Mr
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 260A

…rticle 5(6) of the DTAA will assume primacy and will prevail for the purpose of determining the existence of permanent establishment in India. Reference in this regard is made to the judgments in the cases of Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, [2004] 10 SCC 1 (SC); and Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence (P) Ltd v. CIT, [2021] 432 ITR 471 (SC). It is submitted that notwithstanding the introduction of the concept of Significant Economic Presence through Explanation 2A to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, unilateral amendments made in the Act cannot override the provisions of the DTAA. To buttress th…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, NEW DELHI vs. CLIFFORD CHANCE PTE LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/353/2025HC Delhi04 Dec 2025

Bench: Us Is For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 & I.T.A. 353/2025 Is For Ay 2021-22.

For Appellant: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC, Mr. Ashvini Kr., MrFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Mr
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 260A

…rticle 5(6) of the DTAA will assume primacy and will prevail for the purpose of determining the existence of permanent establishment in India. Reference in this regard is made to the judgments in the cases of Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, [2004] 10 SCC 1 (SC); and Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence (P) Ltd v. CIT, [2021] 432 ITR 471 (SC). It is submitted that notwithstanding the introduction of the concept of Significant Economic Presence through Explanation 2A to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, unilateral amendments made in the Act cannot override the provisions of the DTAA. To buttress th…

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

ITA 992/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…t as it is a settled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding precedential value over and above any different view taken by any other High Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under: "66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court elaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier judgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle of per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench is to make a re…

BHUPINDER SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

ITA 528/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…it is a\nsettled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding\nprecedential value over and above any different view taken by any other\nHigh Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official\nLiquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under:\n\"66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court\nelaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier\njudgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle\nof per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench\nis to mak…

BALBIR SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, SIRSA, HARYANA

ITA 483/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…it is a\nsettled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding\nprecedential value over and above any different view taken by any other\nHigh Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official\nLiquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under:\n\"66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court\nelaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier\njudgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle\nof per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench\nis to mak…

BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 458/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…it is a\nsettled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding\nprecedential value over and above any different view taken by any other\nHigh Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official\nLiquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under:\n\"66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court\nelaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier\njudgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle\nof per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench\nis to mak…

SAT PAL,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), , CHANDIGARH

ITA 243/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

…it is a\nsettled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding\nprecedential value over and above any different view taken by any other\nHigh Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official\nLiquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under:\n\"66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court\nelaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier\njudgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle\nof per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench\nis to mak…

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

ITA 165/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…it is a\nsettled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding\nprecedential value over and above any different view taken by any other\nHigh Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official\nLiquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under:\n\"66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court\nelaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier\njudgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle\nof per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench\nis to mak…

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

ITA 153/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

…it is a\nsettled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding\nprecedential value over and above any different view taken by any other\nHigh Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official\nLiquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under:\n\"66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court\nelaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier\njudgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle\nof per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench\nis to mak…

GURDEEP SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH

ITA 1153/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

…it is a\nsettled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding\nprecedential value over and above any different view taken by any other\nHigh Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official\nLiquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under:\n\"66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court\nelaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier\njudgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle\nof per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench\nis to mak…

JARNAIL SINGH,VILLAGE BHAGWANPUR, KALKA vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA

ITA 1025/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

…it is a\nsettled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding\nprecedential value over and above any different view taken by any other\nHigh Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official\nLiquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under:\n\"66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court\nelaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier\njudgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle\nof per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench\nis to mak…

BALJEET KAUR,NADI MOHALLA AMBALA CITY vs. ITO WARD 1, AMBALA, AMBALA

ITA 92/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

…it is a\nsettled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding\nprecedential value over and above any different view taken by any other\nHigh Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official\nLiquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under:\n\"66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court\nelaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier\njudgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle\nof per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench\nis to mak…

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

ITA 876/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…t as it is a settled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding precedential value over and above any different view taken by any other High Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under: "66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court elaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier judgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle of per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench is to make a re…

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

ITA 663/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…it is a\nsettled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding\nprecedential value over and above any different view taken by any other\nHigh Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official\nLiquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under:\n\"66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court\nelaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier\njudgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle\nof per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench\nis to mak…

ANJU,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) , MOHALI

ITA 563/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…it is a\nsettled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding\nprecedential value over and above any different view taken by any other\nHigh Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official\nLiquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under:\n\"66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court\nelaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier\njudgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle\nof per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench\nis to mak…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

ITA 531/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…t as it is a settled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding precedential value over and above any different view taken by any other High Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under: "66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court elaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier judgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle of per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench is to make a re…

SARVAN SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 4, AMBALA

ITA 458/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

…it is a\nsettled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding\nprecedential value over and above any different view taken by any other\nHigh Court. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Official\nLiquidator v. Dayanand (2008)10 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under:\n\"66. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and others [2003 (5) SCC 448], the Court\nelaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier\njudgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle\nof per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench\nis to mak…

Showing 1–20 of 250 · Page 1 of 13

...