Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India

6 SCC 613Supreme Court of India2012#418 most cited

What is Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India authority for?

Tax planning is legitimate only if it is within the framework of law. Colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning, and it is wrong to encourage avoiding tax through dubious methods.

216

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vodafone International Holdings v. Union of India · substance over form · tax planning · colourable devices · avoiding tax · dubious methods · McDowell · 1985 3 SCC 230 · 2012 6 SCC 613

Also reported as

17 Taxmann.com 202204 Taxmann 408

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 147Section 148Section 131(1A)Section 132Section 251

Issues it is cited on

place of effective managementsection 6(3)section 9(1)(ii)section 127(1)section 80absection 73substance over formtreaty benefitslegal expensesddtclarificatory amendmentazadi bachao andolan

Judgments citing Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India

M/S Fingrowth Cooperative Bank Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

…hip / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19. Further, it is submitted that "control" is a "right". "In any manner" in…

The Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

ITA 1686/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 31, Tanglin Road, #03,-04, St. Circle-3(1)(1), Regis Residences, Singapore, International Taxation, Singapore, Singapore, 247912 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagct8026Q Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Anmol, Adv Shri Priya, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 282A(1)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI Kul Bharat, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member The Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Vs. DCIT, 31, Tanglin Road, #03,-04, St. Circle-3(1)(1), Regis Residences, Singapore, International Taxation, Singapore, Singapore, 247912 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAGCT8026Q Assessee by : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Anmol, Adv Shri Priya, Adv Revenue by: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR Date of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date of pronouncement 23/08/2023 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.1686/Del/2022 for AY 2018-19…

Elara Capital (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Milind DattaniFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule (Addl. CIT)
Section 14A

…Syndicate Inland Inland Revenue Revenue Commissioner (supra) as followed by judgments of this Commissioner as followed by judgments of this Court - See Vodafone International Holdings BV v See Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Court Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Union of India 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Era Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd. 19 ITA No. Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, Kapadia, C and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J." 47. According to Ld. AR, therefore the amendment brought According to Ld AR, therefore the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2022 ca…

Thr Infrastructure Pte Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1)(1), Intl Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2022[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1915/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 THR Infrastructure Pte. Ltd., Vs DCIT, C/o Aakash Uppal, BDO India LLP, Circle-3(1)(1), The Palm Springs Plaza, Officer No. International Taxation, 15th 1501-8, Floor, Sector-54, Golf New Delhi-110002 Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCF0512B Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 12.05.2023 ORDER Per…

Taj Tv Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 821/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Taj Tv Limited Dcit (International C/O. Suresh Surana & Taxation)-4(1)(2) Associates Llp Air India Building, 8Th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. Nariman Point, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 021 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct6542J Reference Of Orders / Directions In Appeal Sr Orders & Directions Passed By Date No 1 Draft Assessment Order U/S The Deputy 27/12/2019 144C Of The Act Commissioner Of Income Tax , International Taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai 2 Direction U/S 144C (5) Of The Cit (Drp-2) , 22/03/2021 Act Mumbai - 2 3 Assessment Order U/S 143 93) The Deputy 12/04/2021 R.W.S 144C (13) Of The Act Commissioner Of Income Tax , International Taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 144C

…o tear apart the corporate veil and in such circumstances the entity has to be discarded and the consequences needed to follow. He referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Vodafone international Holdings versus Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 613 referring to paragraph number 74, 79 and 277 and 280 of that decision. He submits an alternative argument has been taken by the assessing officer that assessee was not running the broadcasting business on its own account from Mauritius and the decision to sell the said business was not taken independently but was taken by its ultimate parent ZEE en…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Century Enka Limited

ITA/7/2020HC Calcutta27 Feb 2023

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…hip / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19. Further, it is submitted that "control" is a "right". "In any manner" in…

M/S. Joy Global (Uk) Ltd. (Formerly As Joy Mining Machinery Ltd.), Kolkata vs. The DCIT (Int. Taxa.)-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow the Grounds of Appeal of the assessee

ITA 16/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)Section 92E

…ITA No.16/Ahd/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 1 of 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Joy Global (UK) Ltd., vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Formerly known as Joy Mining (International Taxation)-1, Machinery Limited) Ahmedabad. C/o. Joy Global (India) Ltd., 85/1, Topsia Road (South) Kolkata - 700 046. [PAN – AACCJ 3893 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR & Shri Parian Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Alok Kumar, CIT DR Date of…

Amritsar Swadeshi Textile Corporation, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Amritsar

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

ITA 175/ASR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 175/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Amritsar Swadeshi Textile Vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Ram Ward-2(1), Amritsar. Tirath Road, Amritsar. [PAN:AAFCA0627F] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 158/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Satish Jain, M/s Jain Industries Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, M/s R.R. Medicare, Kathorli, Jammu. Bari Brahamana Jammu. [PAN:ABLPJ6598A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 168/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21…

Trg Industries Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

ITA 170/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 175/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Amritsar Swadeshi Textile Vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Ram Ward-2(1), Amritsar. Tirath Road, Amritsar. [PAN:AAFCA0627F] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 158/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Satish Jain, M/s Jain Industries Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, M/s R.R. Medicare, Kathorli, Jammu. Bari Brahamana Jammu. [PAN:ABLPJ6598A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 168/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21…

Sant Valves Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

ITA 168/ASR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 175/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Amritsar Swadeshi Textile Vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Ram Ward-2(1), Amritsar. Tirath Road, Amritsar. [PAN:AAFCA0627F] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 158/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Satish Jain, M/s Jain Industries Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, M/s R.R. Medicare, Kathorli, Jammu. Bari Brahamana Jammu. [PAN:ABLPJ6598A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 168/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21…

Sh. Satish Jain, Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

ITA 158/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 175/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Amritsar Swadeshi Textile Vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Ram Ward-2(1), Amritsar. Tirath Road, Amritsar. [PAN:AAFCA0627F] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 158/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Satish Jain, M/s Jain Industries Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, M/s R.R. Medicare, Kathorli, Jammu. Bari Brahamana Jammu. [PAN:ABLPJ6598A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 168/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21…

M/S. Joy Global (Uk) Limited, (Earlier Knows As Joy Mining Machinery Limited Or 'Jmml'), Kolkatta vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxn.)-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow the Grounds of Appeal of the assessee

ITA 1483/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, CIT/D.R
Section 144Section 195(2)Section 44DSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2016-17 M/s. Jay Global (UK) The Assistant Limited (formerly Commissioner of known as Jay Mining Vs Income-tax Machinery Limited) C/0 (International Jay Global (India) Ltd Taxation)-2, 85/1 Topsia Road Ahmedabad (South) Kolkata 700046 (Respondent) PAN No: AACCJ3893R (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parin Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Atul Pandey, CIT/D.R. Date of hearing : 07-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 2…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata vs. M/S V2 Retail Ltd

ITAT/18/2020HC Calcutta28 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…hip / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19. Further, it is submitted that "control" is a "right". "In any manner" in…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Jagannath Banwarilal Texofabs Pvt Ltd

ITAT/9/2020HC Calcutta27 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…hip / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19. Further, it is submitted that "control" is a "right". "In any manner" in…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. J.J.Exporters Ltd

ITAT/5/2020HC Calcutta26 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…hip / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19. Further, it is submitted that "control" is a "right". "In any manner" in…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata vs. L D S City Projects Pvt Ltd

ITAT/3/2020HC Calcutta21 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…hip / voting powers of the shares held in the company and personal influence is not a legal right and thus, not 15(1986) 1 SCC 264 161960 SCC Online Cal 181 17 1973 SCC Online Bom 71 18 (2012) 6 SCC 613 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 107 of 300 enforceable in law. For the same preposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju Versus SEBI 19. Further, it is submitted that "control" is a "right". "In any manner" in…

ACIT- CC - 4(2), Mumbai vs. K.Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2527/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…biguity in the language of Explanation 3C shall be resolved in favour of the assessee as per Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioner (supra) as followed by judgments of this Court - See Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J." 47. According to Ld. AR, therefore the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2022 cannot be said to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra) where…

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2526/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…biguity in the language of Explanation 3C shall be resolved in favour of the assessee as per Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioner (supra) as followed by judgments of this Court - See Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J." 47. According to Ld. AR, therefore the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2022 cannot be said to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra) where…

ACIT-CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. K . Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2525/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…biguity in the language of Explanation 3C shall be resolved in favour of the assessee as per Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioner (supra) as followed by judgments of this Court - See Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J." 47. According to Ld. AR, therefore the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2022 cannot be said to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra) where…

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2524/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…biguity in the language of Explanation 3C shall be resolved in favour of the assessee as per Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioner (supra) as followed by judgments of this Court - See Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J." 47. According to Ld. AR, therefore the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2022 cannot be said to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra) where…