← All Phrases

“impermissible avoidance arrangement”

GAARSection 96Section 9654 judgments

The decision most relied on for impermissible avoidance arrangement is McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (154 ITR 148), cited in 741 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on impermissible avoidance arrangement

McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO
154 ITR 148 · 1985 · Supreme Court
741
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that while legitimate tax planning is permissible, transactions structured as a "colourable device" or "subterfuge" solely to avoid tax are impermissible. It mandates a judicial shift to look beyond the form to the substance of a transaction, allowing the lifting of the corporate veil in tax evasion arrangements.

Judgments citing impermissible avoidance arrangement

R.A.K Ceramics India Private Limited, Samalkot vs. DCIT Circle -3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 465/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)

ITA No 465 of 2022 RAK Ceramics India Private Limited 2 R.A.K. Ceramics India Private Limited Assessment year: 2018-19

Concentrix Catalyst Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 963/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri D Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'DB-B‘Bench, Hyderabad श्री रविश सूद, न्यायिक

Netcracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 730/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92C(3)

section 90 or section 90-A of the Act or where a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner etc, shall be excluded. There is no mention anywhere about section 144C of the Act. 26. If we accept

Brightcom Group Limited (Formerly Known As Lycos Internet Limited), Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 1862/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
Section 145Section 92BSection 92C

section 90 or section 90-A of the Act or where a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner etc, shall be excluded. There is no mention anywhere about section 144C of the Act. 26. If we accept

Epam Systems India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -8 (1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 83/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Shreyas SardesaiFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

section 90 or section 90-A of the Act or where a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner etc, shall be excluded. There is no mention anywhere about section 144C of the Act. 26. If we accept

Epam Systems India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 498/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Shreyas SardesaiFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

section 90 or section 90-A of the Act or where a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner etc, shall be excluded. There is no mention anywhere about section 144C of the Act. 26. If we accept

Repal Green Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 125/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022

For Appellant: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 270ASection 32Section 32A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष

Vinai Shukla, Lucknow vs. ACIT-1, Lucknow New, Lucknow

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

ITA 624/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.624/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vinai Shukla V. Acit-1, Lucknow New 2/280, Vikas Khand Gomti Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Asnps3558C अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. Dr सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21 08 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 12 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Shweta Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 50C

whichever is less; or (xi)the period commencing from the date on which a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 144BA and ending on the date on which a direction

Althi Venkata Narendra Raju, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

ITA 1247/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153(3)

ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय

ITO-28(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Prakash Singh, Mumbai

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

ITA 3844/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 69C

whichever is less; or (xi) the period commencing from the date on which a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 144BA and ending on the date on which a direction

Mr. Satya Prakash Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-28(3)(1), Vashi

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 69C

whichever is less; or (xi) the period commencing from the date on which a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 144BA and ending on the date on which a direction

Supreme High Spaces LLP, Mumbai vs. Nafac, Delhi

The Appeals are dismissed

ITA 4431/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 145(1)Section 14ASection 250

lacking in the present case. From the act and conduct of the assessee in its totality, it is held it is an impermissible avoidance arrangement arising out of underlying hidden understanding amongst associated parties and entities. However, determination of tax effect of this arrangement is immature at this moment

DCIT, Central Cir-2, Madurai vs. J S Nihar Banu, Palakkad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 445/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate
Section 40A(3)

whichever is less; or (x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub- section (1) of section 144BA and ending on the date on which a direction

DCIT, Central Cir-2, Madurai vs. J S Nihar Banu, Palakkad

ITA 444/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

Section 40A(3)

whichever is less; or (x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub- section (1) of section 144BA and ending on the date on which a direction

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Appu Traders, Palakkad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 442/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate
Section 40A(3)

whichever is less; or (x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub- section (1) of section 144BA and ending on the date on which a direction

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Appu Traders, Palakkad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 441/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate
Section 40A(3)

whichever is less; or (x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub- section (1) of section 144BA and ending on the date on which a direction

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Appu Traders, Palakkad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 364/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate
Section 40A(3)

whichever is less; or (x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub- section (1) of section 144BA and ending on the date on which a direction

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. J S Nihar Banu, Palakkad

ITA 363/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

Section 40A(3)

whichever is less; or (x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub- section (1) of section 144BA and ending on the date on which a direction

DCIT, Central Cir-2, Madurai vs. M Shahjahan, Palakkad

ITA 362/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

Section 40A(3)

whichever is less; or (x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub- section (1) of section 144BA and ending on the date on which a direction

DCIT, Central Cir-2, Madurai vs. M Shahjahan, Palakkad

ITA 361/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

Section 40A(3)

whichever is less; or (x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub- section (1) of section 144BA and ending on the date on which a direction