LIC v. Escorts Ltd.58 and Vodafone 58

1 SCC 264Reported decision1986#2493 most cited

What is LIC v. Escorts Ltd.58 and Vodafone 58 authority for?

The corporate veil may be lifted to prevent fraud, improper conduct, or evasion of a taxing statute, or when associated companies are inextricably connected. It also clarifies that 'sanction' implies prior permission, while 'approval' confirms an act already done.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

LIC v. Escorts · 1986 1 SCC 264 · lifting corporate veil · tax evasion · sanction vs approval · Section 153D · Section 151 · assessment procedure · validity of assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 131Section 142(2A)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 114(e)sanction under section 151section 90asection 114substantive assessmentsection 153a(1)(b)section 144aprotective assessmentsection 151(2)section 158bgsection 142(2a)kelvinator

Judgments citing LIC v. Escorts Ltd.58 and Vodafone 58

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1596/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1488 & 1489/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Periyasamy Anbunathan, v. The DCIT, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Central Circle-1(4), Thottakurichi Post, Chennai. Karur-639 113. [PAN: AHMPA 6511 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1529, 1536, 1595 & 1596/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Y…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are

ITA 1536/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…ITA No.1488/Chny/2025 (AY 2015-16) & Others Periyasamy Anbunathan :: 2 :: आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals preferred by the Revenue arise from the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 (hereinafter referred to as Ld.CIT(A)'), Chennai, dated 29.03.2025 for Assessment Years (hereinafter referred to as AY') 2014-15 to 2017-18 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee has preferred appeals and cross objections in relation to the order(s) passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since issues involved are common, all the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1529/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1488 & 1489/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Periyasamy Anbunathan, v. The DCIT, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Central Circle-1(4), Thottakurichi Post, Chennai. Karur-639 113. [PAN: AHMPA 6511 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1529, 1536, 1595 & 1596/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Y…

PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN,KARUR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1489/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1488 & 1489/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Periyasamy Anbunathan, v. The DCIT, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Central Circle-1(4), Thottakurichi Post, Chennai. Karur-639 113. [PAN: AHMPA 6511 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1529, 1536, 1595 & 1596/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Y…

PERIASAMY ANBUNATHAN,KARUR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1488/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1488 & 1489/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Periyasamy Anbunathan, v. The DCIT, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Central Circle-1(4), Thottakurichi Post, Chennai. Karur-639 113. [PAN: AHMPA 6511 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1529, 1536, 1595 & 1596/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Y…

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

…court is entitled to lift the veil of the corporate entity and pay regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade meaning that the court has the power to disregard the corporate entity if it is used for tax evasion. In LIC v. Escorts Ltd. [(1986) 1 SCC 264] this Court held that: (SCC p. 336, para 90) 90. … the corporate veil may be lifted where a statute itself contemplates lifting [of] the veil, or fraud or improper conduct is intended to be prevented, or a taxing statute or a [beneficial] statute is sought to be evaded or where associated companies are inextricably connected as to be, in realit…

KAILASH GAHLOT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3431/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 153DSection 69C

…ional without which, the proceedings are invalid. Sanction is more than mere approval. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the cases of Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan, (1989) 3 SCC 132, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd., (1986) 1 SCC 264 and Kalpanath Rai vs State (1997) 8 SCC 732 have held that “approval” generally conveys a sense of confirmation of an act already done, while “sanction” conveys a prior permission or authorization before the act is done. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, AIR 1976 SC 1766 have held that the approval and…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

…the proposition that controlling interest is inextricably linked to ownership / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19…

M/S FINGROWTH COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

…the proposition that controlling interest is inextricably linked to ownership / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY ENKA LIMITED

ITA/7/2020HC Calcutta27 Feb 2023

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

…the proposition that controlling interest is inextricably linked to ownership / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAILENDRA BABU

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/409/2017HC Karnataka16 Jan 2023

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 260

…hetan v. Kedar Nath Khetan.4 LIC v. Escorts Ltd.5) 12. In Vasudev Ram Chandra Shelat Vs. Pranlal Jayanand Thakar and Others 6, it is held as follows: 4 (1977) 2 SCC 424, para 16. 5 (1986) 1 SCC 264, para 84. 6 (1974) 2 SCC 323. I.T.A No.410/2017 C/W I.T.A No.409/2017 10 "13. The Companies Act of 1913 was meant “to consolidate and amend the law re…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S V2 RETAIL LTD.

ITAT/18/2020HC Calcutta28 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…the proposition that controlling interest is inextricably linked to ownership / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT LTD

ITAT/9/2020HC Calcutta27 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…the proposition that controlling interest is inextricably linked to ownership / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J.J.EXPORTERS LTD.

ITAT/5/2020HC Calcutta26 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…the proposition that controlling interest is inextricably linked to ownership / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. L D S CITY PROJECTS PVT LTD

ITAT/3/2020HC Calcutta21 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…the proposition that controlling interest is inextricably linked to ownership / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES LTD.

ITAT/10/2020HC Calcutta08 Apr 2022

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

…the proposition that controlling interest is inextricably linked to ownership / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES LTD

ITA/13/2020HC Calcutta08 Apr 2022

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

…the proposition that controlling interest is inextricably linked to ownership / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE CALCUTTA TRAMWAYS COMPANY (1978) LTD.

ITAT/20/2020HC Calcutta04 Mar 2022

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

…the proposition that controlling interest is inextricably linked to ownership / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD

ITAT/4/2020HC Calcutta16 Dec 2021

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

…the proposition that controlling interest is inextricably linked to ownership / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19…

PRINCIPAL CIT-14, KOLKATA vs. SHRI VISHWANATH GUPTA

ITA/21/2020HC Calcutta07 Dec 2021

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

…the proposition that controlling interest is inextricably linked to ownership / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19…

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

LIC v. Escorts Ltd.58 and Vodafone 58 (1 SCC 264) — Cited in 46 Judgments | BharatTax