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

Dhritiman Roy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 542/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 90

…Roy Page 11 of 12 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 v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) o CIT v Eli Lily & Co (India) P Ltd (2009) 178 Taxman 505 (SC) o GE India Technology Centre P Ltd v CIT (2010) 193 Taxman 234 (SC) o Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P Ltd v CIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 42 (SC) (Pg 106-109 of PB 2-Para 25 & 26) o CBDT Circular No 333 dated 2/4/82 137 ITR (St.) It was submitted that when there is no co…

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Gandhi Reality (India) Private Limited, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 230

…vi)Cosmos Cooperative Bank Limited vs. DCIT (TS-47-ITAT-2014) (Pune Tribunal) (vii)Areva T & D India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 345 ITR 421 (Delhi HC) (viii)Toyo Engineering India Limited v DCIT, BOM (33 taxmann.com 560) (Mumbai) (ix)UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706) (SC) (x)Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 341 ITR 1 (SC) (xi)CIT v. Motors & General Stores (P.) Ltd [1967] 66 ITR 692 (SC) Gandhi Reality(I) Pvt. Ltd (xii)Dalmia Power Ltd. v. ACIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 252 (SC) (xiii)Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. v. Department of income tax [2012] 24 taxmann.com 323 (Guj.) 30. We n…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Sanjula Sumati Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3002/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…uineness of the transaction. With regard to the ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126: (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan& Anr (2003) 184 CTR 450,263 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 1st April, 2002, losses per…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Sanjula Sumati Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3001/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…uineness of the transaction. With regard to the ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126: (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan& Anr (2003) 184 CTR 450,263 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 1st April, 2002, losses per…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Lalita Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3000/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…uineness of the transaction. With regard to the ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126: (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan& Anr (2003) 184 CTR 450,263 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 1st April, 2002, losses per…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Kanta Ganpatlal Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands

ITA 2999/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…uineness of the transaction. With regard to the ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CТО (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126: (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan& Anr (2003) 184 CTR 450,263 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 1st April, 2002, losses per…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Kanta Ganpatlal Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2998/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…uineness of the transaction. With regard to the ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126: (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan& Anr (2003) 184 CTR 450,263 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 1st April, 2002, losses per…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Anita Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2996/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…uineness of the transaction. With regard to the ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126: (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan& Anr (2003) 184 CTR 450,263 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 1st April, 2002, losses per…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Lalita Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2990/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…uineness of the transaction. With regard to the ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126: (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan& Anr (2003) 184 CTR 450,263 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 1st April, 2002, losses per…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Anita Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2988/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…uineness of the transaction. With regard to the ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126: (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan& Anr (2003) 184 CTR 450,263 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 1st April, 2002, losses per…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. 2015 Grover Family Trust, Mumbai

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

ITA 5108/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 94(7)(E)

…neness of the transaction. With regard to the ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126 : (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr (2003) 184 CTR 450,263 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 1st April, 2002, losses pe…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Cms Computers Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5105/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 94(7)(E)

…neness of the transaction. With regard to the ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126 : (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr (2003) 184 CTR 450,263 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 1st April, 2002, losses pe…

Shri. Vikram Dhondu Rao, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2558/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 244ASection 250Section 44ASection 90

…give FTC. He also submitted that the issue was debatable and cannot be subject matter of decision in Sec.154 proceedings which are restricted in scope to mistakes apparent on the face of the record. 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. ITA No.2557 & 2558/Bang/2024 Mr. Vikram Dhondu Rao, Bangalore Page 18 of 20 15. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that Form No.67 was available before the AO when the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 28.5.2020 was passed. He pointed out that the AO…

Sonali Verma, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(6), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 778/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.778/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Smt. Sonali Verma Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12 (6) Pan:Amnpv3410A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sk Chaturvedi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri SK Chaturvedi, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 91

…of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner 1992 (1) Supp SCC 21, Sambhaji v. Gangabai [2008] 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373/263 ITR 706 etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not 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 Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. 8.…

Sanmoy Ray, Hooghly vs. Income Tax Officer 24(2), Hoohghly

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 683/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Us, The Ld. Ar Argued That The Filing Of Form 67 Within The Stipulated Time Was A Directory Provision & Not Mandatory. It Was Averred That The Us-India Dtaa Would Come To The Rescue Of The Assessee In This Regard.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

…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 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 Rules cannot be contrary to the Act…

Sumukh Suresh Bhardwaj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 935/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Veerabasanagouda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

…give FTC. He also submitted that the issue was debatable and cannot be subject matter of decision in Sec.154 proceedings which are restricted in scope to mistakes apparent on the face of the record. 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. 15. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that Form No.67 was available before the AO when the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 28.5.2020 was passed. He pointed out that the AO or the CIT(A) did not dismiss the Assessee application for rectification u/s…

Nanda Kishore Ravula, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Tax)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nanda Kishore Ravula Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Tax)-2 [Pan :Agupr0664F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/06/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.01.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020- 21 On 15.12.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,08,11,550/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income On 30.03.2021 & Claimed Foreign Tax Credit (“Ftc”) Of 2 Nanda Kishore Ravula

For Appellant: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 91

…of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner 1992 (1) Supp SCC 21, Sambhaji v. Gangabai [2008] 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373/263 ITR 706 etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not 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 Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. 8.…

Essar Communications Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle-1 (2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

…s well as beneficial ownership for applying the provisions of DTAA. Accordingly, the capital gain arising on sale of shares by a resident in Mauritius would not be taxable in India. 13. It is further submitted that in the case of UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706) (SC) wherein the validity of Circular No. 789 dated 13 April 2000 was in question, the Supreme Court has held that the CBDT was justified in issuing the aforesaid circular, since the action of the tax authorities bringing to tax the capital gains earned by Mauritian residents was contrary to the provisions of Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius DTA…

Essar Com Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 339/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

…e as well as beneficial ownership for applying the provisions of DTAA. Accordingly, the capital gain arising on sale of shares by a resident in Mauritius would not be taxable in India. It is further submitted that in the case of UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706) (SC) wherein the validity of Circular No. 789 dated 13 April 2000 was in question, the Supreme Court has held that the CBDT was justified in issuing the aforesaid circular, since the action of the tax authorities bringing to tax the capital gains earned by Mauritian residents was contrary to the provisions of Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius DTA…

Emerging India Focus Funds, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 1963/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ferent rules for interpretation. As far as purposive interpretation, approach is concerned, the treaty is to be interpreted so as to facilitate the attainment of the aims and objectives of the treaty. In case of Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolani, (2003) 263 ITR 706, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that “the principles adopted for interpretation of treaties are not the same as those in interpretation of statutory legislation. The interpretation of provisions of an international treaty, including one for double taxation relief, is that the treaties are entered into at a political level and have se…