“substance over form”

Judicial DoctrinesAzadi BachaoAzadi Bachao176 judgments

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 3

terms of applicable provisions of MMDRA & MA. 13 ITA. No.37/PAN/2023 R.S.Shetye and Bros. 28. In fiscal law what prevails over form is substance. The form of payment though was ‘stamp duty’ but in substance it was a payment for acquiring of mininglease right being a capital asset. We continue ... hold so because in fiscal law, ‘substance over form’ doctrine dictates that the economic reality and true nature of a transaction determine its tax liability/deductibility, rather than its legal form or appearance. 29. A reference can be made to ‘Super Poly Fabrics Ltd. Vs CCE, [2008, 217 CTR (SC)] wherein

REEMA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 353/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: \nDr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 111ASection 139(1)

modus operandi adopted by the\nassessee has been subject matter of the investigation by the\nAuthorities including SEBI. Therefore, the concept of\n“substance over form” and “lifting corporate veil” should be\npressed into action. The learned CIT(A) has also verified\nvarious parameters and even with the basic parameters ... judged by applying the \"theory of preponderance of\nprobabilities\" in place of paper evidence furnished by the assessee.\nAlso, the concepts of \"substance over form\" and \"lifting corporate\nveil\" should be pressed into action in order to understand the\nactual intention of the assessee behind entering into transactions\nthrough penny

CHITRAKOOT TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Chitrakoot Tradeline Private Limited National Faceless Assessment C/O Agarwal Vishwanath & Centre, Associates, 2Nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Vs. 133/1/1A, S.N. Banerjee Road, Nehtru Road, New Delhi-110003 Pushkal Bhawan, 3 Rd Floor, Kolkata-700103, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc3130H Assessee By : S/Shri Deep Agarwal & Shubhankar Ghosh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: S/Shri Deep Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

credible valuation report or explain the basis for the high share premium undermines their argument. The AO's relianceon judicial precedents, which emphasize substance over form, is appropriate. The Chitrakoot Tradeline Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 appellant's argument lacks merit, as the unexplained nature of the premium remains unsubstantiated

YERRAGUDI VENKATA SIVA REDDY,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

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

ITA 1294/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1294/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Yerragudi Venkata Siva Reddy, Ananthapur The Acit, Vs. Pin – 515 001. Circle-1, Pan Aampy0365L Kurnool. Andhra Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: -None- राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 2(47)(ii)Section 48

held that demolition and conversion of the building into scrap is a form of transfer attracting the computation provisions of Section 48. 4. Substance over form in capital gains computation The approach adopted by the Learned CIT(A), relying solely on the recital in the registered sale deed describing

BHARATKUMAR GADODIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6362/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh,Adv & Akshay Pawar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr. Ar.)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250

assistance to the appellant. In view of the above, it is prudent to apply the 'Theory of Human Probabilities' & concepts of 'substance over form' and 'lifting corporate veil' aided with various case laws mentioned above, I treat the transactions made by the assessee through penny stocks as sham transactions

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

mining operations (winning of minerals) in terms of applicable provisions of MMDRA & MA. 28. In fiscal law what prevails over form is substance. The form of payment though was ‘stamp duty’ but in substance it was a payment for acquiring of mining- lease right being a capital asset. We continue ... hold so because in fiscal law, ‘substance over form’ doctrine dictates that the economic reality and true nature of a transaction determine its tax liability/deductibility, rather than its legal form or appearance. ITAT-Panaji Page 29 of 39 M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 038/PAN/2025

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7912/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nMr. Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: \nMr. Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80Section 91Section 92Section 92A(3)

such return. The absence of mandatory\nincome strongly indicated that the transaction was not\nconducted at arm's length.\n(x) Substance Over Form\nThough styled as an investment in preference shares, the\ntransaction effectively placed funds at the disposal of the AE\nfor an indefinite period, without commercial safeguards

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1053/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022

For Appellant: \nShri Naresh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 270A

case and in law, the\ntransaction relating to sale of shares of Kakinada Seaports Limited\nis in essence cancelled based on substance over form theory;\nconsequently, no income should be subject to taxation.\n2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\ntransaction relating

MAERSK TANKERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

ITA 8376/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 92BSection 92B(2)Section 92C

conclusion that the\ntransaction attracts section 92B(2).\n5.2 The DR further pointed out that the DRP also relied on the\nprinciple that substance over form should prevail, and referred to\nthe decision in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Bombay\nHigh Court) to support the proposition that where ... resident group entities,\n\"Lionheart [is] effectively a ‘person other than an AE' in substance\nfor 92B(2) purposes...\", and it invokes “substance over form”.\n9.1 We are unable to approve this approach for the following\nreasons:\ni.\nSection 92B(2) is a deeming provision with a clearly\nstated trigger

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

nITA No. 2542/Del/2024\nto an Indian resident entity. According to the Ld. CIT(A) that here what is to be seen is substance\nover form and spirit/intent of the legislation over the static letter/wording. The Ld. CIT(A) further\nobserved that the substance and spirit of the legislation has been

TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1789/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT (DR)

read with Expln. (c) to section 92F and Rule 10B(2)(c) of the Income Tax Rules and applying the doctrine of “substance over form”, the TPO treated the delay in realisation of AEs invoices as a financing arrangement requiring IT(TP)A No.1789/Bang/2024 Page 27 of 38 separate benchmarking

GIESECKE AND DEVRIENT INDIA PVT LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1428/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(8)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

neither levying nor charging interest on outstanding receivable from AE's as well as the third parties. 38. The TPO/AO erred in applying 'substance over form' principle to re- characterizing the transaction as an interest free loan' the coming to the conclusion that 6 months LIBOR rate is to applied

DCIT, CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2245/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Tata Sons Ltd. @ 0.25% of the Annual Net Income of\neach subsidiary.\n(iii) The BEPS Action Plan 8 to 10 emphasizes substance over form, economic\nreality over legal form and conduct of parties over contracts for evaluating a\ntransaction from transfer pricing angle which has been ignored

DCIT, CIRCLE 3 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

ITA 2244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Tato Sons Ltd. @ 0.25% of the Annual Net Income of\neach subsidiary.\n(iii) The BEPS Action Plan 8 to 10 emphasizes substance over form, есопоміс\nreality over legal form and conduct of parties over contracts for evaluating\na transaction from transfer pricing angle which has been ignored

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

ITA 1518/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Manish Kumar Kanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 1Section 92CSection 92C(3)

assessee to Tata Sons Ltd. @ 0.25% of the Annual Net Income of each subsidiary. (iii) The BEPS Action Plan 8 to 10 emphasizes substance over form, economic reality over legal form and conduct of parties over contracts for evaluating a transaction from transfer pricing angle which has been ignored ... Court Order (09.05.2003) needs to be ignored giving credence to Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. AY 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 substance over form, economic reality over legal form and conduct of parties over contracts for evaluating the transaction from transfer pricing angle. (iii) The brand royalty charged Rs.2500.75

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

ITA 1517/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Tato Sons Ltd. @ 0.25% of the Annual Net Income of\neach subsidiary.\n(iii) The BEPS Action Plan 8 to 10 emphasizes substance over form, есопотіс\nreality over legal form and conduct of parties over contracts for evaluating\na transaction from transfer pricing angle which has been ignored

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1516/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

ASIA TODAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1403/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

assessee had complete control over sale of agent, bore commercial risk on behalf of the agent thereby not appreciating the principle of substance over form? 2.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT is correct in holding that the assessee

BHUBANESWAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 691/CTK/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl. Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.685/Ctk/2025:("नधा"रण वष" / Asst Year:2018-19) आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.686/Ctk/2025:("नधा"रण वष" / Asst Year:2019-20) आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.687/Ctk/2025:("नधा"रण वष" / Asst Year:2020-21) आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.688/Ctk/2025:("नधा"रण वष" / Asst Year:2020-21) आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.690/Ctk/2025:("नधा"रण वष" / Asst Year:2017-18) आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.691/Ctk/2025:("नधा"रण वष" / Asst Year:2022-23) Bhubaneswar Muncipal Vs Dcit, Tds Circle, Bhubaneswar Corporation, Icomc Tower, Infront Of Satya Nagar Kali Temple, Unit- Ix, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaalb 0487 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rajat Kr Kar, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 /12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kr Kar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr DR

defeat substantial justice, particularly when the delay isn't deliberate and prevents meritorious cases from being heard. The core idea is to prefer substance over form, allowing courts to consider the merits of the case rather than just the delay, especially since the party seeking delay condonation doesn't gain

BHUBANESWAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 690/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kr Kar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr DR

Showing 1–20 of 176 · Page 1 of 9

...