← All Phrases

“Azadi Bachao Andolan”

Judicial DoctrinesAzadi BachaoAzadi Bachao337 judgments

GE ENGINE SERVICES LLC,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3700/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 9(1)

filing returns and was treated as resident for the purpose of taxation.\n13. In the case of Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra) the\nHon'ble Supreme Court held as under:\n“It is urged by the learned Attorney General and Shri Salve\nfor the appellants that ... benefits of avoidance of\ndouble taxation. In our view, this issue has also been addressed by\nHon 'ble Supreme Court in case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra).\nWhile dealing with this particular issue, the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt interpreted the expression “liable to taxation” as used in\nArticle

ZARAH RAFIQUE MALIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO (INT TAX) WARD-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5159/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Blezarah Rafique Malik Income Tax Officer, (Int.Tax) B/1703, Vivarea Condominium, Ward- 3(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi East Mumbai – 400 011 Pan : Adcpm8960G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, Adv. & Shri Oom KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153(1)

Company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted indirectly (Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC)). The present arrangement is a tax-avoidance scheme designed to bypass the prohibition on deducting capital-related expenses. Therefore

NEETABEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1794/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12
Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

prudence acting under normal circumstances, without negligence or inaction or want of bona fides. 7.4. The Delhi High Court in the matter of Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India [2001] 116 Taxman 249/252 ITR 471 (Delhi) defined the words 'reasonable cause as under:- "6... Reasonable cause, as applied

NEETABEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1793/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

prudence acting under normal circumstances, without negligence or inaction or want of bona fides. 7.4. The Delhi High Court in the matter of Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India [2001] 116 Taxman 249/252 ITR 471 (Delhi) defined the words 'reasonable cause as under:- "6... Reasonable cause, as applied

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case m Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case m Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay

AL HAMD AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,ALIGARH vs. DC/ACIT, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 63/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 40

which special concessional tax provisions can be made notwithstanding that there might be a loss of revenue. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra) the Supreme Court noted that treaty negotiations are largely a bargaining process with each side seeking concessions from the other, the final agreement will ... This is irrespective of whether the Act contains a provision that corresponds to the treaty provision. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra) the Supreme Court took note of the Circular No. 333 dated 2nd April 1982 issued by the CBDT on the question as to what

LINKEDIN TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI -4 , DELHI

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

ITA 2492/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 195Section 263Section 40

which special concessional tax provisions can be made notwithstanding that there might be a loss of revenue. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra) the Supreme Court noted that treaty negotiations are largely ―a bargaining process with each side seeking concessions from the other, the final agreement will ... Technology Information Vs. PCIT irrespective of whether the Act contains a provision that corresponds to the treaty provision. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra) the Supreme Court took note of the Circular No. 333 dated 2nd April 1982 issued by the CBDT on the question

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)

should prevail over the Act, is very well recognized\nand established principle and this principle has been upheld\nby the Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan's case\nwherein the Court emphatically held thus:\n\"No provision of the DTAA can possibly fasten a tax liability where the\nliability

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)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI GIRISH

NISAR EBRAHIM OOKABHOY ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6638/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(1)Section 199Section 205

also drawn from the Supreme Court's rulings in UCO Bank v.\nCIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 and Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003]\n263 ITR 706, affirming that CBDT circulars and instructions are binding on the\nRevenue. It was contended that the learned CIT(A) erred

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1549/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate and Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

defeated or frustrated. Useful reference is made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373 (SC) approvingly noted Francis Bennion's observations that “a treaty is really an indirect enactment, instead of a substantive legislation ... interpreting a treaty in the Indian context also.” 14.2. We thus, note that Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the cases of Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra) and Ram Jethmalani (supra) referred to the principles set out in Vienna Conventions on Law of Treaties (VCLT) which, inter alia, refer

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1397/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

made to OECD Commentary in support of the\nreasoning, in a large number of reported judgments, including\nlandmark judgments in the cases of Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra) and\nFormula One World Championship Ltd [2017] 80 taxmann.com 47 (SC).\n\n15.\nIn the present case of the assessee ... condition laid\ndown under Article 31(1) of VCLT which has been quoted by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the cases of Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra) and Ram\nJethmalani (supra), as also the observations made by the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court with respect to principles of tax treaty interpretations\ndid

MEKALA RAKESH REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1430/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 90

support his contention had pressed into service the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706(SC), wherein it was held that where a DTAA exists, and the provisions of the same are more beneficial

MEKALA RAKESH REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1429/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 90

support his contention had pressed into service the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706(SC), wherein it was held that where a DTAA exists, and the provisions of the same are more beneficial

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED,HONG KONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2020-21 is partly allowed

ITA 2674/DEL/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2353 और 2674/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2020-21 और 2021-22)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Aditya Vohra & Tanmay Dhakras, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

seeks to apply domestic law amendments to the terms of the treaty, thereby indirectly, but effectively amending the treaty unilaterally. As held in Azadi Bachao Andolan's case (supra) these treaties are creations of a different process subject to negotiations by sovereign nations. The Madras High Court

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED,HONGKONG vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2020-21 is partly allowed

ITA 2353/DEL/2023[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2353 और 2674/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2020-21 और 2021-22)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Aditya Vohra & Tanmay Dhakras, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

seeks to apply domestic law amendments to the terms of the treaty, thereby indirectly, but effectively amending the treaty unilaterally. As held in Azadi Bachao Andolan's case (supra) these treaties are creations of a different process subject to negotiations by sovereign nations. The Madras High Court

WESTERN INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE ESTATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6514/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018
Section 14(3)Section 194ISection 24Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

paid to MIDC, the Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA No. 6079/Mum/2019 has deleted the disallowances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan 26 ITR 706 has emphasized the need to follow the rule of consistency, especially where the facts and circumstances remain unchanged. We therefore reverse the finding

WESTERN INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE ESTATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6324/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018
Section 14(3)Section 194ISection 24Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

paid to MIDC, the Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA No. 6079/Mum/2019 has deleted the disallowances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan 26 ITR 706 has emphasized the need to follow the rule of consistency, especially where the facts and circumstances remain unchanged. We therefore reverse the finding

PRABHNOOR SINGH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 904/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 904/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Prabhnoor Singh, Vs The Ito, B-408, Meda Heights, Ward 6(1), Bellandur, Doddakannelli Road, Chandigarh. Near Aet Circle, Bangalore. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Dcjps5821M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Preeti Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 128Section 128(9)

many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay

Showing 1–20 of 337 · Page 1 of 17

...