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)

ITO, New Delhi vs. Smt. Surren Chanana, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed and

ITA 1649/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2009-10 Mrs. Surren Chanana, Income Tax Officer, L-1/11, Hauz Khas Enclave, Vs. Ward 24(1), New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 54Section 54E

…ated that everbody is entitled to arrange his affairs within the parameters of law, even if it results into the reduction of total tax liability and referred the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC). 8. An the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities on the issue in dispute. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that only issue in the assessee’s appeal is against not allowing the exemption u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of fl…

Mrs. Surren Chanana, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed and

ITA 1615/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2009-10 Mrs. Surren Chanana, Income Tax Officer, L-1/11, Hauz Khas Enclave, Vs. Ward 24(1), New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 54Section 54E

…ated that everbody is entitled to arrange his affairs within the parameters of law, even if it results into the reduction of total tax liability and referred the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC). 8. An the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities on the issue in dispute. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that only issue in the assessee’s appeal is against not allowing the exemption u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of fl…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Indra Gaggar, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 808/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.808, 1295, 1294, 1296 & 809/M/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Dcit Cen Cir 8(1), Smt. Indra Gaggar, R.No.656, 6Th Floor, 41-42, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Gaurav Extension, M.K. Road, Film City Road., बनाम/Vs. बनाम बनाम बनाम Mumbai – 400 020 Gokuldham, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 063 Pan: Afxpg3889B (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) ("&यथ% "&यथ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% "&यथ% "&यथ% Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. Ghosh, D.R. सुनवाई क' तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2016 सुनवाई क' तारीख सुनवाई क' तारीख सुनवाई क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 घोषणा क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Ghosh, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27Section 31Section 68

…Court in McDowell’s case and some other cases has no relevance to the issue at hand. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in McDwell's case is not universally applicable, as has been held in the following cases :- i) Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706(SC) ii) CWT Vs. Arvind Narottam 173 ITR 479 (SC) iii) Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT 222 ITR 831 (Guj) iv) Mathuram Agarwal Vs. State of Madhyapradesh 8 SCC 667 We also found that the documents filed by the assessee along with case laws were forwarded by CIT(A) for remand report to the AO vide letter dated 16-12-2013 and vide letter dated 31-12-2013, th…

Abb Fz-Llc, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 188/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

…-Philippines DTAA. It is a settled principle that the assessee can rely on the provisions of the DTAA if they are more beneficial that the Income Tax Act, 1961 and inter alia the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case UOI V Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 establish the above principle. 8.1.2 In the case on hand, as per the material on record, the payments to IBM- Philippines were for services rendered in the field of pay roll, data management, benefits administration, balance sheet reconciliation, generation of reports, stock option administration, etc. in connection with the project with P & G Ho…

M/S Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2487/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. Vartik RFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT(DR)

Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…e question whether an income which is exempt is eligible to be classified as “chargeable/liable to tax” or not is no longer Res integraas the issue has been decided by no less than the Apex Court in the case of UOI and Others Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Others 263 ITR 706 (SC). (Copy at Annexure-III). Interestingly in this case, the Apex Court was hearing an appeal by the Department against an order of the Delhi High Court which had upheld the plea by a bunch of petitioners that the Treaty benefits should be denied if the income tax has not been paid in one of the Contracting Countries (Mauritius) and quashed CBDT…

Asha M Marfatia, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 18(1) (Old) New 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ramlal Negimrs. Asha M. Marfatia, I-11/12, Paragaon Condmium, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 013. Pan:Aahpm 6090M ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Range- 18(1), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai 400 012 .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Respondent By : Shri A.B.Koli Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 /09/2016

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri A.B.Koli

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…T(A) to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO, 154 ITR 148 (SC) is misplaced and it was pointed out that subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) held that the decision in the case of Mcdowell & Company(supra) cannot be understood to mean that every attempt of tax planning is illegitimate or that every transaction or arrangement which is otherwise perfectly permissible in law but has the effect of reducing the tax liability must be looked upon with disfavour. It was, therefore, conten…