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 367,154 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

DCIT, Chennai vs. Inzi Control India Limited, Sriperambudur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1820/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Raghunathan, and Sankara Narayanan, Advocates
Section 195Section 40

…13 of the DTAA. Terms used in treaties are not to interpreted in the manner which terms are used in a legislative edict in the form of a statute or law. Hon’ble Apex Court had noted as under in its judgment in the case of UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2006) 263 ITR 706, which throws light on the manner which a treaty is to be interpreted. ‘’Interpretation of treaties, The principles adopted in interpretation of treaties are not the same as those in interpretation of statutory legislation. While commenting on the interpretation of a treaty imported into a municipal law, Francis Bennion observes : “With indirect…

DCIT (It) 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Msc Mediterranean Shipping Co. Sa ( Msc), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the Revenue and the cross objections by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1391/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse
Section 143(3)Section 147

…application of the said Article is explicitly clear. 34. It is pertinent to note here that the purpose of tax treaties is to allocate taxing jurisdiction as held, inter alia, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Aandolan 263 ITR 706 and only when an Article provides for tax treatment i.e. to distribute taxing right of a particular type of income, then it can be said that it deals with such item of income. If there is no article providing for such tax treatment to distribute jurisdiction to tax a particular income like the shipping profits the present case, then it cannot be…

Maithan Alloys Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, (It), WD-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 517/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 200ASection 206ASection 90(2)

…ence of PAN details of the non-resident company, 20% of the tax need to have been deducted at source by the Indian assessee. The Hon’ble High Court taking note of the principle of law enunciated in Azadi Bachao Andolan by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 263 ITR 706 (SC) held that DTAA acquires primacy and, therefore, the provision of sec. 206 AA has to be read down to mean that where the deductee i.e. the overseas resident business concern conducts its operation from a territory, whose government has entered into a DTAA with India, the rate of tax would be as governed by 4 Maithan Alloys Ltd., AY 2011-12 th…

M/S Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DDIT (It)-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1548/KOL/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Instrumentarium Corporation Limited………………..………………………………..……….……....Appellant P.O. Box 100, Fi-00031 Ge, Finland Cc: Pricewterhouse Coopers South City Pinnacle 7Th Floor Plot No.Xi-I Sector V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aadcg 1535 E] Ddit (I.T.)-1(1), Kolkata.….....................................................................................….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sachit Jolly, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 27Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvi, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’), Dt. 09/06/2009. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Assessment Year Of This Common Order. 2. The Appeals Bearing No’S Ita No. 1548 & 1549/Kol/2009 , For The Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2004-05, Were Referred By The Hon’Ble, Itat To A Special Bench Vide Order Dt. 6Th April, 2010, To Answer The Following Re-Framed Question.

Section 250

…ivision bench. He prayed that the additional grounds have to be dismissed both, as not admissible, as well as on merits. 7.2 In reply the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 SC and submitted that that the treaty overrides the domestic law and hence is a jurisdictional issue. He submitted that, the amount may be taxable u/s 92 of the Act, but cannot be brought to tax in view of Section 90 of the Act. 8. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharani Enterprises, Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross- Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5806/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 40

…show whether such ruling have binding effect on the judicial authorities in the case of ADIT vs Green Emirates Shipping & Travels TOO ITD 203 (Mum), relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) held that AAR ruling has limited persuasive value. The Hon’ble Apex Court at p. 742 I the above judgment had the occasion to deal with the said AAR ruling and held that sec. 245 S of the Act provides that the Advance Ruling pronounced by the Authority under s. 245R shall be binding only : “(a) on the applicant who had sought it; in respec…

Hsbc Bank (Mauritius) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1708/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru
Section 143(3)Section 254(2)

…tative for the assessee reiterated the reliance on the CBDT Circular no. 789 dated 13.04.2000 (supra) whose validity, according to the learned representative, has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Azadi Bachao Andolan, [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC). Furthermore, it is pointed out that the Ministry of Finance vide Press Clarification dated 01.03.2013 clarified that the CBDT Circular no. 789 dated 13.04.2000 (supra) continues to be in force. Another aspect which is brought out by the learned representative is based on the decision of Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hyundai M…

DCIT, Circle-6, Kolkata vs. M/S. Umil Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2089/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2089/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit Circle 6 Kolkata....................................…………………………..............................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 6Th Floor, Room No. 6/17, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. M/S. Umil Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd...…………………........................Respondent 24, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Aaacu 3331 K] Appearances By: Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 09, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 22, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – Vi, Kolkata Dated 28.08.2014. 2. In Ground No 1, The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,27,34,577/- Made By The Ao Under Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D To Rs. 36,39,744/-.

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…9-10 M/s. UMIL Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd. not be dubbed with ‘colorable devise’. In support of this conclusion, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC) wherein it was held that act which is otherwise valid in law cannot be treated as non-est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interest, as perceived by the respondents. In our opinion, the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana in the case of Pivete Finance…

Supermax Personal Care P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

ITA 6107/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-CIT-DR
Section 143Section 2(47)Section 254(1)Section 9Section 9(1)

…uity succeeds, however reluctant the Court may be to acknowledge the cleverness of the assessee,the Court must give effect to the letter of the taxation law rather than strain that letter against the assessee.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706) has observed as under: "It is open for assessees to arrange their affairs in such a manner that it would not attract the tax liabilities, so far as it can be managed within the permissible limit of the law. Tax management is permissible, if the law authorises so". In the affidavit filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High court theAO had stated that…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross-objection filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 910/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.910/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-21(1) (Erstwhile बिधम/ Shri Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Flat No.805-806, Acit-18(1) Room No. 116, Vs. El-Dorado Chsl, Vs Road, 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028 Parel, Mumbai-400012 Co. No.147/Mum/2016 (Ita. No. 910/Mum/2015) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-21(1) (Erstwhile Aggarwal, Flat No.805-806, Acit-18(1) Room No. 116, Vs. El-Dorado Chsl, Vs Road, 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028 Parel, Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm2137J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals As Well As Cross Objection Against The Order Dated 27.11.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011-12. Ita. No.910/M/15 Co. No. 147/M/2016 A.Y. 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (DR)
Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 48Section 53ASection 54

…9 of 2010], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "the majority Judgment in the McDowell held ix planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of Law" 38, In a number of judgments like McDowells& Co Vs CTO (154 ITR 148), AzadiBachaoAndolan (263 ITR 706) and Walfort Shares & Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd (41 DTR 233), in the context of tax avoidance and tax evasion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain broad principles in this respect which are as follows - • Every action or inaction which results in reduction of lax {lability is not to be viewed with suspicion and IEno! to be treated as a de…

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

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 131

…t permitted a new approach then the AO has no authority to resort to such new method and it is for the legislature to intervene, if it thinks fit. In this regard our attention was drawn to the following decisions: (i) Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andoloan 263 ITR 706 (SC) wherein it was held ‘Treaty shopping' is a graphic expression used to describe the act of a resident of a third country taking advantage of a fiscal treaty between two Contracting States. It is rightly urged by the counsel for the appellants that if it was intended that a national of a third State should be precluded from the benefits of the…

M/S. Tata Technologies Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1433/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1433/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Tata Technologies Limited, Plot No.25, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hingewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaact3092N Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation)-Ii, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna and Arpitha ChoudaryFor Respondent: S/Shri Vivek Aggarwal and Mukesh Jha
Section 115ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

…ects in the enforcement of treaties is one such attempt, which falls just short of a breach, but is nevertheless, in the opinion of this court, indefensible.” 18. Referring to the decision of Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Arn. (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) and The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, the Hon‟ble High Court held the amendments to a treaty must be brought about by an agreement between the parties. Unilateral amendments to treaties are therefore, categorically prohibited. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the words in the treaty would be controlled by definition of thos…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad vs. Adani Wilmar Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2642/AHD/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2018AY 2016-17
Section 2Section 206ASection 90Section 90(2)

…ITA No. 2642/Ahd/2017 DCIT vs. Adani Wilmer Ltd Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Rajpal Yadav JM] Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax ............…………......Appellant (International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad Vs. Adani Wilmer Limited ...........................Respondent 2nd Floor, Fortune House, Nr. Adani House, Mithakhali Cross Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad [PAN : AABCA 8056 G] Appearances by: Saurabh Singh for the Appellant PM Mehta for the Respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 15.03…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad vs. Adani Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2641/AHD/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2018AY 2016-17
Section 206ASection 90Section 90(2)

…ITA No. 2641/Ahd/2017 DCIT vs. Adani Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Rajpal Yadav JM] Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax ............…………......Appellant (International Taxation), Ahmedabad Vs. Adani Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd ...........................Respondent Ground Floor, Adani House, Nr. Mithakhali Circle, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad [PAN : AAACG 7917 K] Appearances by: Saurabh Singh for the Appellant PM Mehta for the Respondent Date of concludi…

Madhu Sarda, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the

ITA 7410/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Mrs. Madhu Sarda , 38,Vikas Center, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 Pan: Aajps 5135R Appellant/ Assessee Versus Income Tax Officer, -19(4) Mumbai Respondent/ Revenue

For Respondent: Sh. V. Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…In 3 Madhu Sarda support of his submission his submissions the reliance is made on the following case law ; (i) CIT Vs George Henderson & Co Ltd 66 ITR 622 (SC ) (ii) K.P. Verghese versus ITO 131 ITR 597(SC) (iii) Union of India versus Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706(SC) (iv) CIT vs Morarjee Textile Ltd ITXA 778/2014 dt. 24.01.2017(Bombay) (v) Morarjee Textile Ltd vs. ACIT, ITA 1979/M/09 dated 10.05.2013 (vi) CIT vs. Hede Consultancy Co. Pvt. Limited, 231 Taxman 421(Bombay) (vii) CIT vs. Shriram Investments [2017] 77 taxmann.com 113(Madras) (viii) CIT vs. Special Prints Ltd 356 ITR 404(Gujarat) (ix) ACIT vs.…

Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 997/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 1St Floor, Parekh Vora Ward-2(1)(2), बनाम/ Chambers, 66, Nagindas Mumbai. Vs. Master Road, Fort, Mumbai. (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcc 2192 B

…ax, it is too well settled that an assessee is not bound to pay the maximum amount of tax and he can arrange his affairs in a manner so as to reduce his liability. If at all required, reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in 263 ITR 706, UOI v Azadi Bachao Andolan. This argument made therefore, should not make any difference whatsoever. In the light of the above, it is submitted that the claim of the assessee deserves acceptance.” 5. The Ld. D.R. orally argued as well as filed the written submissions which read as under: 5 Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd. “At the outset it is stat…

DCIT International Taxation, Coimbatore vs. Habasit Lakoka Private Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1526/CHNY/2017[2016-17(27Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1525 & 1526/Chny/2017 Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Dcit, International Taxation Circle, Coimbatore -Vs- M/S Habasit Lakoka Pvt. Ltd. [Tan: Cmbh03020D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. C.Yamuna, JCITFor Respondent: Shri C.S.K. Prabhu, CA
Section 139A(8)Section 200ASection 206ASection 90(2)

…s, the tax rates as per DTAA or provisions of the Act whichever are beneficial to the assessee shall apply. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Azadi Bachao Andolan reported in (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) , wherein it was held that in case of conflict between the Income Tax Act and provisions of DTAA, the provisions of DTAA would prevail over income tax act. Accordingly it was argued that one has to look at the provisions of DTAA as well as domestic law and decide the tax rates on income chargeable to tax in the hands of non-residents. It was…

DCIT International Taxation, Coimbatore vs. Habasit Lakoka Private Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1525/CHNY/2017[2015-16(27Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1525 & 1526/Chny/2017 Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Dcit, International Taxation Circle, Coimbatore -Vs- M/S Habasit Lakoka Pvt. Ltd. [Tan: Cmbh03020D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. C.Yamuna, JCITFor Respondent: Shri C.S.K. Prabhu, CA
Section 139A(8)Section 200ASection 206ASection 90(2)

…s, the tax rates as per DTAA or provisions of the Act whichever are beneficial to the assessee shall apply. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Azadi Bachao Andolan reported in (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) , wherein it was held that in case of conflict between the Income Tax Act and provisions of DTAA, the provisions of DTAA would prevail over income tax act. Accordingly it was argued that one has to look at the provisions of DTAA as well as domestic law and decide the tax rates on income chargeable to tax in the hands of non-residents. It was…

M/S. T - 3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 826/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.826/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., D-Ii/65-1, Midc, Telco Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 …. Pan: Aacct9805F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Arijit Chakravarty and Shraddha SwarupFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

…cts in the enforcement of treaties is one such attempt, which falls just short of a breach, but is nevertheless, in the opinion of this court, indefensible.” 18. Referring to the decision of Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Arn. (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) and The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, the Hon’ble High Court held the amendments to a treaty must be brought about by an agreement between the parties. Unilateral amendments to treaties are therefore, categorically prohibited. The Hon’ble High Court held 20 T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd. that the words in the treaty…

M/S Pumarth Properties & Holding (P) Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT (Central)-1, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 954/IND/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 132Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…each the genuineness of the transaction. 7 Pumarth Properties With regard to the ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [154 ITR 148(SC)], it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [263 ITR 706(SC)] it has been held that a citizen is free to carry on its business within the four corners of the law. That, mere tax planning, without any motive to evade taxes through colourable devices is not frowned upon even by the judgment of this Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd.’s case (supra). Hence, in the cases arising before 1.4.2002,losses pertaining…

DCIT, 1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Smt Vimlesh Kumar Singh, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 21/BIL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur Vs Late Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Through L/H Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Singh, Prop.M/S Manohar Engineering & M/S Sharda Engineering, Baikunth, District – Raipur Pan No. : Ahjps 0124 K (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Mrs. Shital Verma, Dr Assessee By : Shri K.P.Dewani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 08.02.2013 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,98,28,636/- Made By The Ao By Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Income From Undisclosed Sources.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Shares On Sale Of Which Ltcg Of Rs.1.95,39,611/- Was Shown & Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act Was Claimed Were Held Barely For Little More Than One Year To Qualify The Same As Long Term Capital Asset. The Cost Of The Shares Was Rs.2,69,400/- & Sale Consideration Was Rs.1,98,28,636/-. He

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Dewani, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Shital Verma, DR
Section 10(38)

…arious case laws relied upon by the AO viz. Of the ITAT, Chandigarh A Bench in the case of Somnath Mani reported 100 TTJ 917, the Supreme Court decision in Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. 154 ITR 148 & Supreme Court decision in the case of Azad Bachao Andolan reported in 263 ITR 706 has been duly emphasized by the AO while bringing to tax LTCG as unexplained income. Therefore, in my considered view, the long term capital gains earned by the appellant of Rs.29,09,675 should be taxed as such and not as income from undisclosed sources. The grounds of appeal are allowed." It is clear from the finding of the CIT(A) that the shar…