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.

How many judgments cite Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan?

691 judgments on BharatTax cite Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 139(1), Section 90, Section 234B, Section 143(2), Section 143(1).

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706)

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

ITA 521/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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 Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-6, New Delhi

ITA 8968/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

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 8009/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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,…

Ajay Kumar Mishra, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Ajay Kumar Mishra, Vs Dcit, B-12, The Icon, Dlf City, Circle-1(1), Phase-5, Gurgaon, Gurgaon. Haryana-122009. Pan-Aowpm7493R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri D.K.Pandey, Ca & Shri Manish Pandey, Ca Respondent By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 90

…ial 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) 9 | P a g e - 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.) We submit that when there is…

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

Section 2(24)Section 35DSection 37(2)Section 80H

…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…

ACIT - 21(2), Mumbai vs. Kalpana Shripal Morakhia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3003/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

…uj), Bhoruka Engineering Industries Ltd. v DCIT 356 ITR 25 (Kar). DCIT v Mahendra M Mehta 89 TTJ 1 (Mum-Trib), ADIT v Maersk Line UK Ltd. 149 TTJ 537 (Kol-Trib). CIT vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P Ltd. 326 ITR 1 (SC), Union of India v Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC), CIT vs Special Prints Ltd. 356 ITR 404, DIT (International Taxation) vs Maersk Line UK Ltd. 270 CTR 545 (Cal.). 21. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I donot find any justification in the action of the AO in disallowing short term capital loss of Rs. 23.44 crore on the sale of shares of I.Dream Production Pvt.…

Prasanth Nandanuru, Hyderabad vs. ITO, (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Chande, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 192(1)Section 5(2)(a)Section 5(2)(b)Section 90

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA-IT No. 369/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Prasanth Nandanuru, Vs. The Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (INT TAXN)-2, [PAN : ACQPN6612H] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri Hiten Chande, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 13/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 28/…

Google Ireland Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (It), Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2845/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(It)A No. 2845/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 234BSection 9

…of 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 t…

Anju Agast Srivats, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, (NFAC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1158/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Ms. Anju Agast Srivats Vs The Income Tax Officer No. 303. Sobha Orchid Nfac, Delhi Jakkur, Bengaluru 560064 Pan – Afsps6930E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain J. Ca Revenue By: Shri Sankarganesh K., Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi’S Order Dated 23.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Wherein He Had Denied The Foreign Tax Credit (Ftc).

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain J. CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K., Addl CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 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) (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…

Shyamol Banerji, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 26/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth N. Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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) (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…

Shyamol Banerji, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 25/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth N. Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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) (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…

The Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gauri Tandon, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1846/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleacit – 15(1)(1) V. Gauri Tandon Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Tandon Beach House Mumbai - 400020 Plot No. 35(Pt), Aajad Road Juhu Koliwada, Santacruz (W) Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Aaapb4013C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Smiti Samant

Section 133(6)Section 54Section 54BSection 90

…been entered into by the appellant's father and appellant can at best be termed as tax planning, but it cannot be regarded as tax evasion. Tax planning is permissible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706.” 21. In our view, the aforesaid discussion by the CIT(A) is fair and apt, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and we find no reason to interfere with the same. In any case, there is no material to suggest that any colourable device has been adopted by the assessee to avoid tax while carrying on the transaction of sale of sha…

ACIT(It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ixia Technologies International Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 6/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 6/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax(It)...Appellant Circle-1(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawanpoorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Ixia Technologies International Limited,..Respondent Plot No. Y-14, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700091 [Pan: Aacci3401L] Appearances By: Shri Amal Kamat, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Rahul Saha, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee

Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

…the parties. Unilateral amendments to treaties are therefore categorically prohibited. Even the Parliament is not competent to effect amendments to international instruments. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. AzadiBachaoAndolan [2003] 263 ITR 706/132 Taxman 373, these treaties are creations of a different process subject to negotiations by sovereign nations. Therefore insertion of Explanation 4 in the definition of "Royalty" in Sec. 9(1)(vi) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-6- 1976, has no effect whatsoever and the issue has to be decided in the light of the definition of "Ro…