Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

263 ITR 706Supreme Court of India2003#83 most cited

What is Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan authority for?

International tax treaties and conventions are not automatically enforceable in India's domestic law. They require an enabling legislative act or a notification issued by the Union under Section 90 of the Income-tax Act to be given effect and create rights or liabilities.

652

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Azadi Bachao Andolan · Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan · Section 90 · tax treaty enforcement · DTAA · international taxation · treaty benefits · municipal law · enabling legislation · Section 90 notification

Also reported as

132 Taxmann.com 373

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 139(1)Section 90Section 234BSection 143(2)Section 143(1)Section 142(1)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 286(9)section 90(1)(b)principal purpose testsection 2(ma)multilateral instrumentsection 286azadi bachao andolansection 90(1)treaty benefitssection 295section 28(i)ppt

Judgments citing Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

VINAY DUBE,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O 8(2)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9106/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, SR. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 90

…ral grounds, once the fact of tax payment in the foreign jurisdic"on is established. The CBDT Circular No. 333 dated 02.04.1982 also clarifies that DTAA provisions prevail over domes"c law. Judicial authori"es including Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706, SC) and CIT v. Dinesh Vora (393 ITR 186, Bom HC) have consistently held that treaty relief must be interpreted liberally to avoid double taxa"on and should be granted once documentary evidence of tax payment abroad is produced. 5.2.3 In view of the above and considering that only part of the relevant period (April 2022 to December 2022) is cover…

ZARAH RAFIQUE MALIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO (INT TAX) WARD-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5159/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Blezarah Rafique Malik Income Tax Officer, (Int.Tax) B/1703, Vivarea Condominium, Ward- 3(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi East Mumbai – 400 011 Pan : Adcpm8960G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, Adv. & Shri Oom KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153(1)

…cision: Panel thus, rejects the Colourable Arrangement undertaken by the Applicant and the Company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted indirectly (Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC)). The present arrangement is a tax-avoidance scheme designed to bypass the prohibition on deducting capital-related expenses. Therefore, the Panel: 1. Rejects the self-serving agreement as an avoidance arrangement. 2. Upholds the disallowance of the deduction claim since IPO expenses are capital in nature and not incurred by the Assessee.…

AMITH VISHNAV GUDIMELLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1705/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1705/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Amith Vishnav The Income Tax Officer, Gudimella, Hyderabad. Ward-12(1), Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aghpv2565J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 91

…of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner 1992 (1) Supp SCC 21, Sambhaji v. Gangabai [2008] 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373/263 ITR 706 etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act is only directory, since DTAA over rides the Act, and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. 8.…

SHIPIJ RATHORE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 557/IND/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

…al to a taxpayer. Therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following cases and circulars:* *Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) CIT v Eli Lily & Co (India) P Ltd (2009) 178 Taxman 505 (SC) GE India Technology Centre P Ltd v CIT (2010) 193* *Taxman 234 (SC) Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P Ltd v CIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 42 (SC) (Pg 106-109 of PB 2-Para 25 & 26) CBDT Circular No 333 dated 2/4/82 137 ITR (St.) It was submitted that when there is no conditio…

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

…n the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21), Sambhaji Vs. Gangabai (2008) 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case m Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act is only directory, since DTAA over rides the Act, and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act…

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

…n the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21), Sambhaji Vs. Gangabai (2008) 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case m Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act is only directory, since DTAA over rides the Act, and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act…

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

…M/s MacDowell and Company Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer [(1985) 3 SCC 230) Case. It is humbly submitted that MacDowell dictum cannot over-ride GAARS statutory limits. Here it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) and Vodafone Case (2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC) protect legitimate tax planning absent sham. 33. In this regard, provisions of Rule 10U may be considered. Rule 10U provides that chapter X-A is not to apply in certain cases. Rule 10U (1)(a) reads as under: The provisions of Chapter X-A shall not apply to- ITA Nos.3406 & 3407/Del/2025 An arrangement…

MEKALA RAKESH REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1430/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 90

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मधुसूदन साव"डया, माननीय लेखा सद"य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 1429/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2021-22) Mekala Rakesh Reddy, VS. DCIT, Hyderabad. Circle-1(1), PAN: AGNPM0062F Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1430/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2023-24) Mekala Rakesh Reddy, VS. DCIT, Hyderabad. Circle-1(1), PAN: AGNPM0062F Hyderab…

MEKALA RAKESH REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1429/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 90

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मधुसूदन साव"डया, माननीय लेखा सद"य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 1429/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2021-22) Mekala Rakesh Reddy, VS. DCIT, Hyderabad. Circle-1(1), PAN: AGNPM0062F Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1430/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2023-24) Mekala Rakesh Reddy, VS. DCIT, Hyderabad. Circle-1(1), PAN: AGNPM0062F Hyderab…

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED,HONG KONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2020-21 is partly allowed

ITA 2674/DEL/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2353 और 2674/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2020-21 और 2021-22)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Aditya Vohra & Tanmay Dhakras, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…indefensible. 42. It takes little imagination to comprehend the extent and length of negotiations that take place when two nations decide to regulate the reach and application of their legitimate taxing powers. In Union of India v. AzadiBachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706/132 Taxman 373 (SC) where the Indo Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Convention was before the Supreme Court, the Court said the following of the essential nature of these treaties, "132. An important principle which needs to be kept in mind in the interpretation of the provisions of an international treaty, including one for double taxation relief…

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED,HONGKONG vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2020-21 is partly allowed

ITA 2353/DEL/2023[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2353 और 2674/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2020-21 और 2021-22)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Aditya Vohra & Tanmay Dhakras, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…indefensible. 42. It takes little imagination to comprehend the extent and length of negotiations that take place when two nations decide to regulate the reach and application of their legitimate taxing powers. In Union of India v. AzadiBachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706/132 Taxman 373 (SC) where the Indo Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Convention was before the Supreme Court, the Court said the following of the essential nature of these treaties, "132. An important principle which needs to be kept in mind in the interpretation of the provisions of an international treaty, including one for double taxation relief…

PRABHNOOR SINGH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 904/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 904/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Prabhnoor Singh, Vs The Ito, B-408, Meda Heights, Ward 6(1), Bellandur, Doddakannelli Road, Chandigarh. Near Aet Circle, Bangalore. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Dcjps5821M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Preeti Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 128Section 128(9)

…the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21), Sambhaji Vs. Gangabai (2008) 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act is only directory, since DTAA over rides the Act, and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act…

DCIT - 19(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI vs. DISHANT DEEPAK SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4281/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh
Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

…eme case has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme case has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) case of Union of India Vs Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) case of Union of India Vs Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) (263 ITR 706) (SC). (263 ITR 706) (SC). 6.17 On similar facts, the Sura 6.17 On similar facts, the Surat Bench of ITAT in the recent t Bench of ITAT in the recent judgement dated 29th November judgement dated 29th November 2021, in the case of 2021, in the case of Sandipkumar Parsottambhai Patel Vs ITO (2022) Sandipkumar Parsottambhai Patel Vs ITO (2022) Sand…

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3633/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

…tage of proceedings. Thus, by settled judicial authority, a valid TRC issued by the competent authority of the contracting State is sufficient evidence of residence for DTAA purposes. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [(2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC)] held that once a TRC is produced, treaty entitlement follows as a matter of law. I. Jurisdictional Satisfaction under Section 6(3) is Mandatory Before Issuing Notice U/s 148 to a Foreign Company The unchallenged TRCs, SEBI FPI status, withholding tax certificate, board resolutions, Singapore tax records, and other statutory filings and docu…

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3632/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

…tage of proceedings. Thus, by settled judicial authority, a valid TRC issued by the competent authority of the contracting State is sufficient evidence of residence for DTAA purposes. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [(2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC)] held that once a TRC is produced, treaty entitlement follows as a matter of law. I. Jurisdictional Satisfaction under Section 6(3) is Mandatory Before Issuing Notice U/s 148 to a Foreign Company The unchallenged TRCs, SEBI FPI status, withholding tax certificate, board resolutions, Singapore tax records, and other statutory filings and docu…

FULLERTON FINANCIAL HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(3)(1) - MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 1137/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

…iness profile of FFH as published by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (Secretary Board) (refer to Page Nos. 1314 to 1332 of the Factual PB). 16. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of AzadiBachaoAndolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) (refer to Page No. 76 of the Legal PB) upheld the Circular 789 dated April 13, 2000, which stated that a Certificate of Residence issued by competent authorities would suffice to establish tax residence and beneficial ownership status. 17. As is evident from the above, the affairs of the Appellant were not arranged with the primary purpose…

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)

…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 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)

…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 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)

…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…

Showing 1–20 of 652 · Page 1 of 33

...