Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

263 ITR 706Supreme Court of India2003#79 most cited

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

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

691

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan · section 90 · treaty benefits · tax planning · colourable devices · liability to taxation · payment of tax · Article 4 · tax treaty

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
Read the full judgment

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

M/S. Datalog Technologies Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Inernational Taxation, Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

ITA 936/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Datalog Technologies V. Income-Tax, Private Limited, International Taxation, Flat No. 6, 3Rd Street, Coimbatore. Narayandas Layout, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aabcd-5720-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…of the Act does not apply. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated: “It is a well settled that provisions of DTAA between India and other countries over ride the provisions of lncome tax. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bacho Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC) (which was also referred to in our earlier submissions filed on 21.02.2020), We are also enclosing DTAA between India and Indonesia which has already been submitted. As per Article 7 of the DTAA , the business profit of an enterprise in Indonesia will be taxable only in that State unless it carries on the business in India to a Permanent est…

M/S. Datalog Technologies Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

ITA 935/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Datalog Technologies V. Income-Tax, Private Limited, International Taxation, Flat No. 6, 3Rd Street, Coimbatore. Narayandas Layout, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aabcd-5720-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…of the Act does not apply. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated: “It is a well settled that provisions of DTAA between India and other countries over ride the provisions of lncome tax. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bacho Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC) (which was also referred to in our earlier submissions filed on 21.02.2020), We are also enclosing DTAA between India and Indonesia which has already been submitted. As per Article 7 of the DTAA , the business profit of an enterprise in Indonesia will be taxable only in that State unless it carries on the business in India to a Permanent est…

Maya Kapoor, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 783/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv. and Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

…hemicals & Fertilisers Ltd 117 and a 10992 taxmann.com 24 (SC)/(1992 Supp (1) 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 (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.…

Indian Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 158/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.155, 156, 157 & 158/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A ./For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 90Section 90(3)

…es notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of PVAL Kulandagan Chettiyar. The CIT(A) should have found that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court read with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), it is not open to him to tax the income from foreign branches amounting to Rs. 129,65,45,949/ -“ 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee bank has branches at Singapore and Colombo, outside India and claimed the income from foreign branches as exempt from taxes in India relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cas…

Indian Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 157/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.155, 156, 157 & 158/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A ./For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 90Section 90(3)

…es notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of PVAL Kulandagan Chettiyar. The CIT(A) should have found that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court read with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), it is not open to him to tax the income from foreign branches amounting to Rs. 129,65,45,949/ -“ 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee bank has branches at Singapore and Colombo, outside India and claimed the income from foreign branches as exempt from taxes in India relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cas…

Indian Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 156/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.155, 156, 157 & 158/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A ./For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 90Section 90(3)

…es notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of PVAL Kulandagan Chettiyar. The CIT(A) should have found that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court read with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), it is not open to him to tax the income from foreign branches amounting to Rs. 129,65,45,949/ -“ 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee bank has branches at Singapore and Colombo, outside India and claimed the income from foreign branches as exempt from taxes in India relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cas…

Indian Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 155/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.155, 156, 157 & 158/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A ./For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 90Section 90(3)

…es notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of PVAL Kulandagan Chettiyar. The CIT(A) should have found that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court read with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), it is not open to him to tax the income from foreign branches amounting to Rs. 129,65,45,949/ -“ 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee bank has branches at Singapore and Colombo, outside India and claimed the income from foreign branches as exempt from taxes in India relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cas…

Little Fairy Limited, Nicosia vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation 2(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1513/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshlittle Fairy Ltd, Vs. Acit, Office 601, 6Th Floor, Circle- Anastasio Building, 15, International Tax- Dimitriou Karatasou, 2(2)(1), Strovolos 2024, Nicosia, New Delhi Foreign Cyprus (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaccl1478L Assessee By : Shri J. Srivastav, Adv Shri Karav Malhotra, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Kumar Davas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri J. Srivastav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Davas, Sr. DR
Section 144C(3)Section 234BSection 282

…789 dated 13.04.2000 in the context of India-Mauritius Treaty to the facts of the instant case. In this regard, the ld AO stated that the Circular 789 was only regarding India-Mauritius and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan reported in 263 ITR 706 (SC) had decided the issue Little Fairy Ltd in the same context, and accordingly, the benefit of the India-Mauritius Treaty cannot be made applicable to India-Cyprus Treaty. The AR placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate bench decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case ADIT Vs. Universal International Music BV reported in 45 SOT 219 (Mum)…

Moog Motion Controls Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 184/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas K. P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 90

…payer. Page 17 of 19 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 BachaoAndolan [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 condition…

Sukdev Sen, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir. 61, Kolkata

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

ITA 78/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90Section 90(2)

…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…

Deepak Shimoga Padmaraju, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate byFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2021-22 Deepak Shimoga Padmaraju, The Asst. Director of 12, 3rd Floor, 4th Cross, Income Tax, 14th Main, Adarsha Layout, Vs. ITO, CPC, Hongasandra, Bangalore. Bangalore South, Bommanahalli S.O Bangalore-560 068. PAN : BAQPS 0277 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate by Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department Date of hearing : 12.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024 O R D E R PER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD S…

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 194/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

…f the India - Ireland DTAA merely because the marketing, distribution and ITES activities are carried out in India and revenues are generated from India or from Indian Advertisers. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706, at page 763: "We are unable to agree with the submissions that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perceived by the respondents." 34. Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that…

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 191/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

…f the India - Ireland DTAA merely because the marketing, distribution and ITES activities are carried out in India and revenues are generated from India or from Indian Advertisers. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706, at page 763: "We are unable to agree with the submissions that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perceived by the respondents." 34. Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ovid Technologies Inc, Gurgoan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2626/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2622 & 2626/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2020-21 बनाम Acit Ovid Technologies Inc., Circle 2(2)(2), Vs. N-143, Ground Floor, International Taxation, Luxotica Today, Room No. 411, 4Th Floor, Sector-51, Gurgaon, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Haryana. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Center, New Delhi. Pan No. Aabco3041P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92

…n 92 of the Act, the assessee is entitled to invoke the provisions of India-USA DTAA to the extent it is more beneficial to the assessee. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706. 6. Accordingly, we will consider the beneficial provisions of the tax treaty to see whether the contention of the assessee that the alleged revenue is not royalty income. 7. As per Article 12 of the Tax Treaty, ‘Royalty” is defined as under: “10.1.4.1 (a) “payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ovid Technologies Inc., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2622/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2622 & 2626/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2020-21 बनाम Acit Ovid Technologies Inc., Circle 2(2)(2), Vs. N-143, Ground Floor, International Taxation, Luxotica Today, Room No. 411, 4Th Floor, Sector-51, Gurgaon, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Haryana. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Center, New Delhi. Pan No. Aabco3041P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92

…n 92 of the Act, the assessee is entitled to invoke the provisions of India-USA DTAA to the extent it is more beneficial to the assessee. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706. 6. Accordingly, we will consider the beneficial provisions of the tax treaty to see whether the contention of the assessee that the alleged revenue is not royalty income. 7. As per Article 12 of the Tax Treaty, ‘Royalty” is defined as under: “10.1.4.1 (a) “payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any…

Norwest Venture Partners X - Mauritius, Mauritius vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 2311/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2020-21]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 71(4)

…attention to Circular No.789 dated 13.04.2000 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. He submitted, the sanctity of CBDT Circular No.789 dated 13.04.2000 has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of UOI vs Azadi Bachao Andolan reported in [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC). In this context, he drew our attention to various observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cited decision. He submitted, though, subsequently there was a proposal in the Finance bill to amend section 90 of the Act to the effect that TRC alone may not be a sufficient condition for claiming treaty benefit, however, issue was clarified…

Uma Maheshwar Rao Vendavelli, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5 (3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 34/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Monish Sawkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Subramanian.S, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

…icial 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) (Pgs. 106-109 of PB 2-Paras 25 & 26) CBDT Circular No. 333 dated 2/4/82 137 ITR (St.) It was submitted that when th…

Superb Mind Holding Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…e prior to 01.04.2017 cannot be taxed in India. (c) MIH India (Mauritius) Ltd. vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) in ITA No. 1023/Del/2022 (kindly see pages 9 to 30 of PB - II, Relevant Page 22 of PB - II Para 11). (d) Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Another (263 ITR 706), (e) Vodafone International holdings B.V Vs Union of India & Anr 341 ITR 1 [2012]” 5.3 In view of the aforesaid submissions and case laws, Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is a resident of Mauritius and entitled to the benefit given under India-Mauritius Tax treaty and more so, the investments so made by assessee – appellant are clearly…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4372/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…d not be conclusive of arrangement being sham or a device. As regards the observations of the-hon'ble Supreme Court in McDowell [1985] 154 ITR 148, the matter has. been explained in subsequent judgments including in Union of India v. AzadiBachaoAitdokn [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC); AIR 2004 SC 107. Reiterating the view that the assessee was entitled to arrange his affairs to reduce his tax liability, without violating the law, it was observed in AzadiBachaoAndolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SQ; AIR 2004 SC 107 that the principle laid down in IRC v. Duke of Westminster [1936) AC 1 was still valid. 4. It was further observed t…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4236/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…d not be conclusive of arrangement being sham or a device. As regards the observations of the-hon'ble Supreme Court in McDowell [1985] 154 ITR 148, the matter has. been explained in subsequent judgments including in Union of India v. AzadiBachaoAitdokn [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC); AIR 2004 SC 107. Reiterating the view that the assessee was entitled to arrange his affairs to reduce his tax liability, without violating the law, it was observed in AzadiBachaoAndolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SQ; AIR 2004 SC 107 that the principle laid down in IRC v. Duke of Westminster [1936) AC 1 was still valid. 4. It was further observed t…