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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

Shalini Bhupal, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 271/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Smt.Shalini Bhupal Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyerabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Acepb2655G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. K. Haritha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.03.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. There Is A Delay Of 2Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Petition Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By 2 Days Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. K. Haritha, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 39Section 90

…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 ITA No. 526/Hyd/2022 S.A.No. 19/Hyd/2022 Page 4 of 5 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…