Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India

372 ITR 337High Court2015#8460 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 28Section 28(iv)Section 45Section 47(vii)Section 49(1)(iii)(e)

Judgments citing Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-000152-000152 - 2026Supreme Court09 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 47

…2026 INSC 46 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2026 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2028 of 2021] M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – II, NEW DELHI ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2026 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2190 of 2021] M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD. ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – V NEW DELHI .…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-41(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SANGEETA DILIP PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 551/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-41(2)(1), Sangeeta Dilip Patil, Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, 111, Marathon Max Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mulund Goregoan Link Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aatpp 1470 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Fenil Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 28

…ix. Rohitasava Chand Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) x. CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) xi. CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in the case of Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT 126 ITD 100, in the case of…

ACIT 26 (3), MUMBAI vs. SANGEETA DILIP PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6557/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit-26(3), Sangeeta Dilip Patil, R. No. 332, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya 1204, Park Royale, Madan Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mohan Malviye Road, Bandra East, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aatpp 1470 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Nilu Jaggi, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 23/02/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Nilu Jaggi, CIT-DR
Section 28(11)(a)

…l.) Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) x. CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) xi. CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in the case of Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACI the case of Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT 126 ITD 100, held as T 126…

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 959/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Mahavir Prasadassessment Year : 2011-12 Ananya Finance For Inclusive The Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Growth P Ltd. Ambawadi 401, Shaan, Op: M.J. Library Ahmedabad 380015. Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aahca 8023 D

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)

…t vs CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC) approved looking behind the apparent transaction to the arrangement or scheme involved therein for the purposes of taxation. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a recent decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del) held the separate payment of purchase price for shares of a company and non compete fees for not indulging in similar activity as the said company, to the assessee, as a mere colorable device in the facts and circumstances that by virtue of sale of shares, entire control and management had transferred and the non compete fees was accordingl…

PRANAY GODHA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result we are in agreement with a finding of Ld

ITA 1185/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mani Jain/Prateek JainFor Respondent: Sh. Vinay Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 28

…s CIT 155 ITR 681 (Kar.) vii) Indian Bank Ltd Vs CIT 153 ITR 282 (Mad.) viii) ACIT vs. Savita N. Mandhana & Ors., ITA No. 3900/Mum/2010 ix) Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) x) CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) xi) CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) 13. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in the case of Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT 126 ITD 100, held as under “Admittedly, in the share purchase agreement no consideration was assigned towards non-compete fees and the parties had entered into the share purchase agreement after mutually settling the price of shares. Thi…

HARSHIT FINLEASE & INVESTMENTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4991/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Shri Harsh Kothari &For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 234BSection 54E

…rned counsel of the assessee further relied upon several case laws in support of his position, including the following. i) CIT vs Amalgamation (P.) Ltd., 226 ITR 188 (SC) ii) CIT vs Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd., 83 ITR 377 (SC) iii) CIT vs Shiv Raj Gupta, 372 ITR 337 (Delhi) iv) CIT vs Govindlal C. Mandhana (HUF), ITA Nos. 1221 & 1222 of 2012 dated 14.11.2014 (Bombay High Court) v) ACIT vs Savita N. Mandhana, ITA No. 3900/Mum/2010 dated 07.10.2011 vi) Shuklendu A. Baji vs DCIT, ITA No. 5209/Mum/2017 dated 05.02.2018 vii) Tecumseh India (P.) Ltd. vs Addl. CIT, [2010] 127 ITD 1 (Delhi)(SB) The learned DR, on t…

HARSHIT FINLEASE & INVESTMENTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4989/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Shri Harsh Kothari &For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 234BSection 54E

…rned counsel of the assessee further relied upon several case laws in support of his position, including the following. i) CIT vs Amalgamation (P.) Ltd., 226 ITR 188 (SC) ii) CIT vs Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd., 83 ITR 377 (SC) iii) CIT vs Shiv Raj Gupta, 372 ITR 337 (Delhi) iv) CIT vs Govindlal C. Mandhana (HUF), ITA Nos. 1221 & 1222 of 2012 dated 14.11.2014 (Bombay High Court) v) ACIT vs Savita N. Mandhana, ITA No. 3900/Mum/2010 dated 07.10.2011 vi) Shuklendu A. Baji vs DCIT, ITA No. 5209/Mum/2017 dated 05.02.2018 vii) Tecumseh India (P.) Ltd. vs Addl. CIT, [2010] 127 ITD 1 (Delhi)(SB) The learned DR, on t…

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4423/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Sh. Girish Dave Special
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 2(22)(a)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 28Section 56(1)

…reated as busienss transaction and relied on decision in Mazgaon Dock Ltd. vs. CIT 34 ITR 368 (SC) (iii) the vlaue of beneift received shall be income of the receipient for which the ld. DR relied upon the decision of Delhi High Corut in CIT vs. Shivraj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (iv) the benefit should be non- monetary, (v) there should be direct nexus between the benefit received and the business of the assessee and (vi) and there should be absence or inadequate consideration for benefit received. 19. In rejoinder submsision, the ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee in reply to the obejction of ld. Special Counsel for Reven…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. TARA SINHA

The appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs

ITA/154/2005HC Delhi11 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 28

…) by relying on the decision of the ITAT in Shiv Raj Gupta in ITA No.489/Del/98, which now stands reversed by this Court. 12. The foundation of Mr. Hossain’s arguments rests on the decision of this ITA No.154/2005 Page 5 of 17 Court in CIT v. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (2015) (hereafter ‘Shiv Raj Gupta’) dated 22nd December, 2014. He specifically relies upon the judgment to argue that this Court considered the Vodafone judgment of the Supreme Court and any camouflage of terminal benefits as a non-compete fee, should be held to be an `abusive tax avoidance’. 13. Mr. Hossain, urges that the entire amount of Rs.3,…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED.,

ITA/923/2015HC Delhi08 May 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 195Section 260ASection 40

…ITA 923 of 2015 Page 1 of 10 $~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 923/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate versus HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha and Ms. Rupali Gupta, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA O R D E R % 08.05.2017 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. This is an appeal by…

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA - 132 / 2002HC Delhi24 Sept 2015
Section 2Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 45Section 50

…transfer, i.e. Rs.20.729 crore, it was evident that the intention was to sell the plant and machinery to the lessee. Mr. Singh referred to the decisions in Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India (2012) 341 ITR 1 and CIT v. Shivraj Gupta(2015) 372 ITR 337 (Del.). Submissions of counsel for the Assessee 26. In reply Mr. Vohra submitted that it was not possible to dissect the lease agreement and hold that while the giving on lease the plant and machinery was valid, the lease of the land and building was a sham transaction. It is inconceivable that the mere plant and machinery would be leased…

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA/38/2002HC Delhi24 Sept 2015
Section 2Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 45Section 50

…transfer, i.e. Rs.20.729 crore, it was evident that the intention was to sell the plant and machinery to the lessee. Mr. Singh referred to the decisions in Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India (2012) 341 ITR 1 and CIT v. Shivraj Gupta(2015) 372 ITR 337 (Del.). Submissions of counsel for the Assessee 26. In reply Mr. Vohra submitted that it was not possible to dissect the lease agreement and hold that while the giving on lease the plant and machinery was valid, the lease of the land and building was a sham transaction. It is inconceivable that the mere plant and machinery would be leased…

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA/132/2002HC Delhi24 Sept 2015
Section 2Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 45Section 50

…transfer, i.e. Rs.20.729 crore, it was evident that the intention was to sell the plant and machinery to the lessee. Mr. Singh referred to the decisions in Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India (2012) 341 ITR 1 and CIT v. Shivraj Gupta(2015) 372 ITR 337 (Del.). Submissions of counsel for the Assessee 26. In reply Mr. Vohra submitted that it was not possible to dissect the lease agreement and hold that while the giving on lease the plant and machinery was valid, the lease of the land and building was a sham transaction. It is inconceivable that the mere plant and machinery would be leased…

Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India (372 ITR 337) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax