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)

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…arises in India or is deemed to accrue or arise in India. Section 9 of the Act lays down the various circumstances under which income would be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 5.11. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court had, in the case of UOI Vs Azadi Bachao Andolan: 263 ITR 706, made following observations regarding bilateral double taxation avoidance agreements entered by nations which are germane to the issue before us: “16. Every country seeks to tax the income generated within its territory on the basis of one or more connecting factors, such as location of the source, residence of the taxable entity, maintenance of…

Subramanian Sreeram, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1027/BANG/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 90

…r. 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] 132 Taxman 373/263 ITR 706 (SC) • CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 505/312 ITR 225 (SC) • GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18/193 Taxman 234/327 ITR 456 (SC) • Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 125 taxmann.com 42/281 Taxman 1 9/432 ITR 471 (SC) (Pg 106-109 of PB 2-Para 25 & 26) • CBDT…

Purushothama Reddy Vanki Reddy, Tirupathi vs. ADIT, (Int. Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 526/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 526/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Purushothama Reddy Vs. Adit (Intn Taxation)-1, Vankireddy Hyderabad Tirupathi [Pan No. Aetpv4382D] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent S.A. No. 19/Hyd/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.526/Hyd/2022) (निर्धारण‍वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Purushothama Reddy Adit (Intn Taxation)-1, Vankireddy Vs Hyderabad Tirupathi [Pan No. Aetpv4382D] आवेदक / Applicant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध / Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध / Revenue By: Ms. Swapna, Dr सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2022 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 05/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 11/08/2022 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The S.A.No. 19/Hyd/2022 Case Of Purushothama Reddy Vankireddy (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Assessee Preferred This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna, DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 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 Page 3 of 5 S.A.No. 19/Hyd/2022 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 Ru…

M/S Adarsh Rice Mill, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 84/RPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.84/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Adarsh Rice Mill 123, Jhanki, Abhanpur, Dist.-Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aamfa1207F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of the AOs was carried out, was binding on the department and there could be no escape from the same. In support of his aforesaid contention, the Ld. AR had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC). Further, the Ld. AR in support of his contention that an assessment framed on the basis of a notice u/s.148 issued by a non-jurisdictional A.O would be devoid and bereft of any force of law had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pavan Morarka Vs. ACIT-2 (2022) 136 taxmann.com 2 (Bombay). It wa…

M/S. Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 199/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

…t capital as equity capital and, accordingly, disregard the interest payments as tax deductibles. 24. We find guidance from Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. (2003) 184 CTR (SC) 450 . (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) wherein their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows . "111. In para 3.3.1 after noticing the growing practice amongst certain entities, who are not residents of either of the two Contracting States to try and avail of the beneficial provisions of the DTAAs and indulge in what is popularly known as ‘treaty shopping’, the report say…

M/S Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3336/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

…t capital as equity capital and, accordingly, disregard the interest payments as tax deductibles. 24. We find guidance from Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. (2003) 184 CTR (SC) 450 . (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) wherein their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows . "111. In para 3.3.1 after noticing the growing practice amongst certain entities, who are not residents of either of the two Contracting States to try and avail of the beneficial provisions of the DTAAs and indulge in what is popularly known as ‘treaty shopping’, the report say…

Mih India (Mauritius) Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Int. Tax., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1023/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 143C(13)

…amendment on implementation of MLI preamble, subject to, Mauritius signing the MLI, the Assessing Officer held that the prevailing legal position based on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 706 (SC) would significantly change and even if the assessee is having a valid TRC, still it would not be entitled to tax exemption under the Treaty. Further, he observed, since, the effective control and 5 | P a g e AY: 2017-18 management of the assessee company rests at the hands of the holding company in Netherlands, the provisions of India –…

Herbert Smith Free LLP, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals stand allowed

ITA 3993/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 9(1)(vii)

…nklaters & Paines 49 taxmann.com 66 (Mumbai - Trib.) (Page 183 of the legal paperbook) 12. Thereafter, he referred and drew support from the interpretation to term ‘liable to tax’ from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706. He further submitted that in addition to the above, in the following judicial pronouncements, the eligibility of a fiscally transparent partnership firm to avail of the tax treaty benefits has been affirmed on the basis that the income of the partnership firm has been taxed in the foreign state in the hands of its partners: (i) DDIT vs A. P Mo…

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals stand allowed

ITA 5760/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 9(1)(vii)

…nklaters & Paines 49 taxmann.com 66 (Mumbai - Trib.) (Page 183 of the legal paperbook) 12. Thereafter, he referred and drew support from the interpretation to term ‘liable to tax’ from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706. He further submitted that in addition to the above, in the following judicial pronouncements, the eligibility of a fiscally transparent partnership firm to avail of the tax treaty benefits has been affirmed on the basis that the income of the partnership firm has been taxed in the foreign state in the hands of its partners: (i) DDIT vs A. P Mo…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 1516/BANG/2013[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 1515/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 1514/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 1513/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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…

Tashi Air Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 314/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.297/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, International Taxation, Circle-2(1), Kolkata .......….…..…..........….. Revenue Vs. M/S Tashi Air Pvt. Ltd..................…………..............................................…… Assessee 38, Tivoli Court, 1A, Ballygunge Circular Road, Beckbagan, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaect9735E] I.T.A No.314/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Tashi Air Pvt. Ltd..................…………..............................................…… Assessee 38, Tivoli Court, 1A, Ballygunge Circular Road, Beckbagan, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaect9735E] Vs. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle-2(1), Kolkata .......….…..…..........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit & Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Dipayan Basu, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 19, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 12, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Cross-Appeals One Filed By The Revenue & The Other By The Assessee. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.05.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)] Whereas The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 30.03.2022 Of The Assessing Officer Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Drp’).

Section 144CSection 9Section 90

…; I.T.A No.297/Kol/2021& I.T.A No.314/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/s Tashi Air Pvt. Ltd. 5. It is pertinent to note here that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Union of India vs. AzadiBachaoAndolan” (2003) 263 ITR 607, where a specific provision is made in the DTAA, that provision will prevail over the general provisions contained in the Income Tax Act if, the same is more beneficial to the assessee as provided under section 90(2) of the Income tax Act. 6. Since there article 8 of the Indo Bhutan DTAA is more beneficial to the assessee, therefore the profits d…

DCIT, International Taxation, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tashi Air Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 297/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.297/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, International Taxation, Circle-2(1), Kolkata .......….…..…..........….. Revenue Vs. M/S Tashi Air Pvt. Ltd..................…………..............................................…… Assessee 38, Tivoli Court, 1A, Ballygunge Circular Road, Beckbagan, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaect9735E] I.T.A No.314/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Tashi Air Pvt. Ltd..................…………..............................................…… Assessee 38, Tivoli Court, 1A, Ballygunge Circular Road, Beckbagan, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaect9735E] Vs. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle-2(1), Kolkata .......….…..…..........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit & Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Dipayan Basu, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 19, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 12, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Cross-Appeals One Filed By The Revenue & The Other By The Assessee. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.05.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)] Whereas The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 30.03.2022 Of The Assessing Officer Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Drp’).

Section 144CSection 9Section 90

…; I.T.A No.297/Kol/2021& I.T.A No.314/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/s Tashi Air Pvt. Ltd. 5. It is pertinent to note here that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Union of India vs. AzadiBachaoAndolan” (2003) 263 ITR 607, where a specific provision is made in the DTAA, that provision will prevail over the general provisions contained in the Income Tax Act if, the same is more beneficial to the assessee as provided under section 90(2) of the Income tax Act. 6. Since there article 8 of the Indo Bhutan DTAA is more beneficial to the assessee, therefore the profits d…

M/S. Indi Stock Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata- II

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

ITA/49/2009HC Calcutta30 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…Further it was pointed out where the purchase of any article or of any capital investment, for instance shares is made without the intention to resell it at a 6 (1959) 36 ITR 175 (SC) 7 (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) ITA NO. 49 OF 2009 REPORTABLE Page 11 of 11 profit, the resale under such changed circumstances would only be realization of capital and would not stamp the transaction with a business…

M/S. Gayan Traders Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II

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

ITA/48/2009HC Calcutta30 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…t the assessee had maintained a separate account for investment, which fact was very material to consider the nature of transactions effected by the assessee during the relevant period. 14 (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) ITA NO. 48 OF 2009 REPORTABLE Page 19 of 19 16. Thus, for the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the learned tribunal erred in reversing the order passed by the CIT(A).…

Sanjiv Gopal, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sanjiv Gopal, Vs. Adit, No.181, Ground Floor Mandara, Cpc, 2B Cross, 4Th Main, Domlur 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Agvpg 2262 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Gudimella V. P. Pavan Kumar, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella V. P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sanjiv Gopal, Vs. ADIT, No.181, Ground Floor Mandara, CPC, 2B Cross, 4th Main, Domlur 2nd Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 071. PAN : AGVPG 2262 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. V. Sridhar, CA Revenue by : Shri. Gudimella V. P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 27.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the…

ACIT (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.P.Morgan Indian Investment Company Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue becomes infructuous as dismissed

ITA 2382/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-3(1)(1), M/S J. P. Morgan India R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air Investment Company India Building, Nariman Mauritius Limited, बनाम/ Point, Mumbai-400 021 C/O- Srb & Associates Llp, Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacf0626J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 41/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S J. P. Morgan India Acit-3(1)(1), Investment Company R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air India Mauritius Limited, Building, Nariman Point, बनाम/ C/O- Srb & Associates Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 18.05.2022 & 23.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144C

…assessee." 21. From the above, it is clear that the provisions of the Act can be resorted to only when these are more beneficial (compared to Treaty). 22. The said proposition has been accepted by the Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) (263 ITR 706) (SC), wherein it was held as under:- "A survey of the aforesaid cases makes it clear that the judicial consensus in India has been that section 90 is specifically intended to enable and empower the Central Government to issue a notification for implementation of the terms of a double taxation avoidance agreement. When that happens, the provisio…

Anuj Bhagwati, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1845/MUM/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Anuj Bhagwati Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Nishant House, 6, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Carmichael Road, Room No.533, 5Th Floor, Cumballa Hill S.O, Mumbai-400086 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aehpb1858C Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Sinha.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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. o Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (Supreme Court) o CIT Vs. Eli Lily & Co (India) P. Ltd (2009) 178 Taxman 505 (Supreme Court) o GE India Technology centre P Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 193 Taxman 234 (Supreme Court) o Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P Ltd Vs CIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 42 (Supreme Court) (Pg 106-109 of Paper Book 2- Para 25 & 26) o CBDT Circular No. 333 dated 0…

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Subramanian Sreeram, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

Purushothama Reddy Vanki Reddy, Tirupathi vs. ADIT, (Int. Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

M/S Adarsh Rice Mill, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Raipur

M/S. Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

M/S Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Bangalore

Mih India (Mauritius) Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Int. Tax., New Delhi

Herbert Smith Free LLP, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), New Delhi

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

Tashi Air Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Kolkata

DCIT, International Taxation, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tashi Air Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

M/S. Indi Stock Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata- II

M/S. Gayan Traders Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II

Sanjiv Gopal, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

ACIT (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.P.Morgan Indian Investment Company Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai

Anuj Bhagwati, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai