Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 263, Section 147, Section 148, Section 131(1A).

Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India

Q: How many judgments cite Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India?

216 judgments on BharatTax cite Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India (6 SCC 613), spanning 2012 to 2026.

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

Issues it is cited on

place of effective management section 6(3)section 9(1)(ii)section 127(1)section 80ab section 73 substance over form treaty benefits legal expenses ddt clarificatory amendment azadi bachao andolan

Judgments citing Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India

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 2523/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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 2522/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

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

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 2521/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Tcg Lifesciences Ltd

ITAT/10/2020HC Calcutta08 Apr 2022

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…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Rungta Mines Ltd

ITA/13/2020HC Calcutta08 Apr 2022

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

Jangloos Chandak Creation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 495/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

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

…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.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 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.…

Jangloos Chandak Creation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 494/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

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

…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.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 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.…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata vs. M/S the Calcutta Tramways Company (1978) Ltd

ITAT/20/2020HC Calcutta04 Mar 2022

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

Pnp Engineering Works (P) Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. A C of Income Tax Cir. 27(1), Haldia

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 334/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

…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.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 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.…

Pnp Engineering Works (P) Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. A C of Income Tax Cir. 27(1), Haldia

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 333/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

…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.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 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.…

Pnp Engineering Works (P) Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. A C of Income Tax Cir. 27(1), Haldia

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 332/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

…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.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 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.…

Desana Poly Plastic Industries, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 34, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

…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.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 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.…

Md. Mujibur Rahaman, Durgapur vs. ACIT, Cir. 2, Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 381/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

…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.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 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.…

Kanchan Metals Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

…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.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 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.…

Trident Security and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 303/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

…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.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 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.…

Trident Security and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 302/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

…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.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 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.…

Microviews Infosystems Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.P.C., Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/KOL/2021[2018-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2018-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

…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.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 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.…

Flowline Services Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

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

…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.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 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.…

Victory Surveilliance & Escorts (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

…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.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 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.…

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/s. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCB4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue by: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तार…