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. Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 2301/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 3430/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

M/S. Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 387/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

Ms Google India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 2890/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Google India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 881/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

Google India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 559/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 68/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Google India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 205/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

Ambibuzz Technologies LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1084/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

…uzz Technologies LLP 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 condition…

Factiva Ltd. C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Lltp, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1505/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.1504 & 1505/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Hirali Desai &For Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(2)Section 195Section 270ASection 274Section 9(1)(vi)

…sions of section 92 of the Act, the assessee is entitled to invoke the provisions of India –USA DTAA to the extent it is more beneficial. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andalon 263 ITR 706. Accordingly, we will consider the beneficial provisions of the tax treaty to see whether the contention of the assessee that the alleged payment from DJCIPL is not royalty income. 11. 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…

Factiva Ltd. C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Lltp, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1504/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.1504 & 1505/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Hirali Desai &For Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(2)Section 195Section 270ASection 274Section 9(1)(vi)

…sions of section 92 of the Act, the assessee is entitled to invoke the provisions of India –USA DTAA to the extent it is more beneficial. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andalon 263 ITR 706. Accordingly, we will consider the beneficial provisions of the tax treaty to see whether the contention of the assessee that the alleged payment from DJCIPL is not royalty income. 11. 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…

Sapein Funds Ltd., Mauritius vs. CIT (International Taxation) Delhi-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…s amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. The ld. AR further relied on the judgments in the case of Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. 263 ITR 706, Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd. Vs. AAR 379 ITR 256 and In Re General Electric Pension Trust 280 ITR 425. 23. On going through the entire facts, we find that the observation of the ld. CIT that the assessee company is not entitled to treaty benefits being a non-resident for tax purpose because of non-fulfillment of condition of liable to tax criteria is wro…

Kazya Watanabe, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 312/BANG/2023[2021-2022]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2023AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2021-22 Mr. Kazuya Watanabe, The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Plot No.21, Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Centralized Processing Centre, Private Limited, Vs. Bengaluru. Bidadi Industrial Area, Ramanagara, Bengaluru – 562 109. Pan : Adfpw 5263 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sarwan Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Sarwan Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2021-22 Mr. Kazuya Watanabe, The Assistant Director of Income Tax, Plot No.21, Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Centralized Processing Centre, Private Limited, Vs. Bengaluru. Bidadi Industrial Area, Ramanagara, Bengaluru – 562 109. PAN : ADFPW 5263 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Sarwan Kumar, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 06.06.2023 O R D E R Per Geor…

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mukand Sumi Metal Processing Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3568/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit 3(2)(1) M/S. Mukand Sumi Metal Processing Mumbai Limited 3Rd Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Vs. Jamanalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 005

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak &For Respondent: 09.03.2023
Section 250Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ACIT 3(2)(1) M/s. Mukand Sumi Metal Processing Mumbai Limited 3rd Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Vs. Jamanalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 005 PAN/GIR No. AAECT 3291 P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumen Adak & Shri Ashish Jhawae : Smt. Mahita Nair Revenue by : 09.03.2023 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 02.06.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…e the reliance by Assessing Officer on the decision of McDowells & Co. Ltd. (supra) is highly misplaced. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 Further, it must be stated that in the later decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr 263 ITR 706 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the citizen is free to carry on the business within four corners of law and further proceeded to observe that mere tax planning without any motive to evade the tax through colourable device is not frowned upon even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowells & Co. Ltd. (supra). Even in the subse…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…e the reliance by Assessing Officer on the decision of McDowells & Co. Ltd. (supra) is highly misplaced. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 Further, it must be stated that in the later decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr 263 ITR 706 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the citizen is free to carry on the business within four corners of law and further proceeded to observe that mere tax planning without any motive to evade the tax through colourable device is not frowned upon even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowells & Co. Ltd. (supra). Even in the subse…

Shridhar Madhav Diwan, Gachibowli vs. DCIT, Circle 12-(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/HYD/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 May 2023AY 2019-2020
For Appellant: Shri C.S. Subramaniyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 154Section 295(1)

…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 No. 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…

Thr Infrastructure Pte Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1)(1), Intl Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2022[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…evidence to determine whether the person is a resident of the contracting state. The ld. AR placed reliance on CBDT Circular No. 789 dated 13th April, 2000, validity of which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706) and on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 17 taxmann.com 202. It was argued that the TRC is a sufficient document to establish that the Assessee is tax resident of Singapore and entitled to claim the beneficial provisions delineated in the DTAA. The ld. AR also r…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1953/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…counter to the ratio laid down in Tata Tea Ltd. (supra). Hence, the decision rendered in the case of SIDBI does not support the case of Revenue. 48. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further argued that in the case of Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 706(SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the principles adopted in interpretation of treaties are not the same as those in interpretation of statutory legislation and must be to the context and the intention of the contracting parties in entering the Treaty. Further, the 39 Special Bench - Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. provisions of the Treaty,…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1952/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…counter to the ratio laid down in Tata Tea Ltd. (supra). Hence, the decision rendered in the case of SIDBI does not support the case of Revenue. 48. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further argued that in the case of Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 706(SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the principles adopted in interpretation of treaties are not the same as those in interpretation of statutory legislation and must be to the context and the intention of the contracting parties in entering the Treaty. Further, the 39 Special Bench - Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. provisions of the Treaty,…