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 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 90 Section 234B Section 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 test section 2(ma)multilateral instrument section 286 azadi bachao andolan section 90(1)treaty benefits section 295 section 28(i)ppt

Judgments citing Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1844/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

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…

Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Officer, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 708/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Vs. Ito, Flat B002, Renaissance Brindavan, Cpc, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru South, Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Ahwps 5221 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)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 : 2017-18 Shri. Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Vs. ITO, Flat B002, Renaissance Brindavan, CPC, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru South, Bengaluru – 560 061. PAN : AHWPS 5221 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Y. Sridhar, CA Revenue by : Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 19.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal filed by the Assessee ag…

Carolina Food and Industries Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2625/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 32

…ITA No. 2625/KOL/2018 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Carolina Food And Industries Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 2625/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Carolina Food And Industries Pvt. Limited........................................Appellant B-391, Lake Gardens, Kolkata-700045 [PAN: AACCC5093L] -Vs.- DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax,................................................Respondent Circle-10(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appea…

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 680/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 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…

Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 520/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 253Section 92CSection 92D

…bt 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 says…

Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-1, New Delhi vs. Air India Ltd

ITA/233/2022HC Delhi28 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 12(4)Section 2Section 206ASection 7Section 90(2)

…s more beneficial to the assessee, having regard to the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act. In this context, the CIT(A) has correctly observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan and Others v. UOI, MANU/SC/1219/2003 : (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) has upheld the proposition that the provisions made in the DTAAs will prevail over the general provisions contained in the Act to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee. In this context, it would be worthwhile to observe that the DTAAs entered into between India and the other relevant countries in the present context provide for scop…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technip France Sas, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 724/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicialmember Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144C(5)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

…issued by the Government, the definition of FTS in India – Portuguese Tax Treaty cannot be imported to India – France Tax Treaty. For such proposition, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 706. 15. We have patiently and carefully considered rival submissions made, both, orally as well as in writing, in the light of the decisions relied upon. We have also perused the materials on record, including the paper books submitted by the assessee. The core issue arising for considering is, whether the amount received by the assessee from t…

Deputy Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Aurangabad

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1694/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak & Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43(5)Section 73(4)

…ns of this Act shall apply to the extent there are more beneficial to the assessee” than the case that only the corresponding DTAA clauses shall deal with the issue. This is further followed by the CBDT’s circular 621 dated 19.12.1991; as considered in (2003) 263 ITR 706(SC) Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan, that benefits flowing from the domestic law provisions’ shall not be denied merely because the corresponding clause in the tax treaty is less beneficial. This tribunal in (2012) 19 taxmann.com 292 (Mum) Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s ADIT also holds that the Revenue authorities cannot thrust DTAA pr…

Deputu Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 958/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak & Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43(5)Section 73(4)

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 989/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak & Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43(5)Section 73(4)

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Kbd Sugars & Distilleries Ltd

ITA/169/2014HC Karnataka30 Jun 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

Section 2Section 260Section 724Section 72A

…or Advocate submitted that: • The transaction of purchase of windmills was completed in March 2006; • The department conducted the survey on 28.03.2006 to find out about the very transaction; 7 263 ITR 706 [SC] I.T.A No.169/2014 7 • The survey conducted by the revenue itself establishes that it had sufficient information with regard to the purchase of windmills by the assessee; • The revenue has accepted a…

Asstt. CIT, Cir- 7, Nagpur vs. M/S. Newquest Corporation Ltd., Chandrapur

ITA 328/NAG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani (Adv.)For Respondent: ShriPiyushKolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 40

…oked the transaction entered into by the appellant. None of the transaction entered ir.to by the appellant are illegal or done with intention of defrauding revenue. It .5.: in such a context that it has been held in the case of AzadiBachaoAndolan, reported in 263 ITR 706 (SC), that the word 'sham' cannot be used as magic Mantras or catch all phrases to nullify the effect of a legal situation. The relevant portion of the order in case of Alok Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra) wherein the above pronouncement of the honorable Apex Court is referred to is reproduced hereunder:- ".. If the transactions a-e not illegal or done…

ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi vs. Claridge Hotels P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4874/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Claridge Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3, 12, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-1100011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0022B

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR

Section 145(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 4874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 ACIT, Vs Claridge Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3, 12, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-1100011 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACC0022B Assessee by : Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. & Sh. Sanket Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 27.06.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue gainst the o…

Factiva Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6455/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

Section 13(3)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

…f 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 8 M/s. Factiva Ltd. 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 t…

M/S. Star Chemical (Bombay) P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT - 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 5987/MUM/2006[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R

…case. 20. The view expressed by the Orissa High Court has been further fortified by the Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs George Williamson (Assam) Ltd 265 ITR 626. In the said judgement, the Court has held as follows: "In UOI vs Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706, the Supreme Court has approved the decision of the Madras High Court in M.V. Valliapan v. ITO 170 ITR 238, wherein the Madras High Court had held that the decision in Mcdowell & Co vs CTO 154 ITR 14E(SC) cannot be read as laying down that every attempt at tax planning is illegitimate and must be ITA Nos.5986 & 5987/M/2006 14 M/s. Star Chemicals…

M/S. Star Chemical (Bombay) P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT - 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 5986/MUM/2006[1995-1996]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 1995-1996

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R

New Skies Satellites B. V, Haryana vs. DCIT Circle 2(2)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 436/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 244ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

…the interpretation of the provisions of an international treaty, including one for double taxation relief is that treaties are negotiated and entered into at a political level go ahead and have several considerations as their bases. Commenting on this (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) ITA 473/2012, 474/2012, 500/2012 & 244/2014 Page 32 aspect of the matter, David R. Davis in Principles of International Double Taxation Relief , David R. Davis, Principles of International Double Taxation Relief , Pg.4 (London Sweet & Maxwell, 1985)points out that the main function of a Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty should be seen in the…

Shri Ashok Dharendra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

…eld that circulars issued by the Board are binding: - (i) Navnit Lal C Javeri Vs. Sen (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) (ii) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) (iii) UCO Bank vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) (iv) Union of India vs. Azadi Bachoo Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706(SC) 22. Although, ld CIT-DR has stressed on the fact that the presumption of correctness is attached to the statement recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act and even the A.O. has categorically mentioned that page No. 1 to 4 of Annexure-A2 were found and seized during the course of search, therefore, the assessee cannot claim these documents as dump docum…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 958/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 957/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)