← All Phrases

“Azadi Bachao Andolan”

Judicial DoctrinesAzadi BachaoAzadi Bachao337 judgments

The decision most relied on for Azadi Bachao Andolan is Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), cited in 691 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Azadi Bachao Andolan

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan
263 ITR 706 · 2003 · Supreme Court
691
citing judgments

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India
341 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
295
citing judgments

Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd.
317 ITR 207 · 2009 · High Court
107
citing judgments

For claiming relief under Chapter VI-A deductions like Section 80IB or 80IA, the audit report in Form 10CCB is not mandatory to be filed with the return of income, but can be submitted before the assessment is completed.

CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar
267 ITR 654 · 2004 · Supreme Court
85
citing judgments

This case established a principle regarding the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) versus domestic tax law, particularly concerning the use of more beneficial provisions for an assessee, though its specific impact has been nullified by subsequent legal amendments.

Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003)(177 Taxation 775) and Pradip J Mehta v. CIT
300 ITR 231 · 2008 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

Circulars issued by the CBDT are binding on Income Tax Authorities.

Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
252 ITR 471 · 2001 · High Court
57
citing judgments

A penalty under sections like 271D or 271E is not automatically imposed if the assessee proves there was a reasonable cause for the failure. The interpretation of 'reasonable cause' is that which would prevent a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence from acting negligently or in bad faith.

Banyan & Berry v. CIT
222 ITR 831 · 1996 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Legitimate tax planning, executed within the framework of law, is permissible and distinct from tax avoidance through colourable devices or sham transactions. The concept of 'colourable device' or 'sham' cannot be applied to defeat a legal situation unless the acts are of a doubtful or questionable bona fide character.

Sanofi Pasteur Holding SA v. Department of Revenue
354 ITR 316 · 2013 · High Court
42
citing judgments

Gains from the indirect transfer of shares in a foreign company holding Indian shares are not taxable in India under the relevant tax treaty, which is considered a self-contained code to be interpreted plainly. Creating corporate structures or special purpose vehicles for investment to secure tax benefits is a legitimate business activity.

Judgments citing Azadi Bachao Andolan

Neetu Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1898/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Neetu Agarwal………………………………………………………….…..……Appellant Flat 6C, Block 2, Shree Ramnagar Residential Complex, Vip Road, Tegharia, W.B – 700052. [Pan: Actpa2426P] Vs. Ito, Kolkata……………..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Puja Agarwal, A.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Is A Resident Individual, Who Filed Her Return Of Income On 29.12.2021 For The Financial Year 2020-21 Relevant To Assessment Year 2021-22 Reporting A Total Income Of Rs.25,58,440/-. The Assessee Discharged Her Tax Liability By Way Of Tax Deducted At Source Amounting To Rs.2,80,028/-, Self-Assessment Tax Of Rs.22,740/- & Foreign Tax Credit (‘Ftc’) Of Rs.2,25,936/-. The Assessee Also Filed Form.67 Which Was Filed On 25.01.2022. An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On 28.10.2022 In Which The Ftc Was Not Provided To The Assessee. This Disallowance Resulted In Tax Demand Of Rs.2,79,130/-.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

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

General Motors Overses Disribution Coporation, Usa vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2360/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 General Motors Company Usa, Vs Acit, Circle International 1209 Orange Street, Taxation 1(3)(1), Wilmington Delaware New Delhi – 110 002 United States, Zip Code - 19801 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 General Motors Overseas Vs Acit, Circle International Distribution Corporation, Usa Taxation 1(3)(1), 2711, Centreville Roadnew Castle New Delhi – 110 002 County, Wilmington, Usa-19808 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ss Tomar, Adv. & Shri Sumeet Hemkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri VishalFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 148Section 234BSection 234c

pays the tax or not.  Reliance in this regard, is placed on the Supreme Court ruling in case of UO and Anr vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr [20131 4 ITA Nos.2359-2360/Del/2022 263 ITR 706 (SC) wherein it was observed that liability to taxation is a legal situation: payment ... Contracting State. In our humble understanding, this is the legal position emerging out of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Azadi Bachao Andolan’s case (supra). The plea taken by the revenue that the assessee was not liable to tax which was anyway not taken by the Assessing Officer

General Motors Company, Usa vs. ACIT Circlr International Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 General Motors Company Usa, Vs Acit, Circle International 1209 Orange Street, Taxation 1(3)(1), Wilmington Delaware New Delhi – 110 002 United States, Zip Code - 19801 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 General Motors Overseas Vs Acit, Circle International Distribution Corporation, Usa Taxation 1(3)(1), 2711, Centreville Roadnew Castle New Delhi – 110 002 County, Wilmington, Usa-19808 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ss Tomar, Adv. & Shri Sumeet Hemkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri VishalFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 148Section 234BSection 234c

pays the tax or not.  Reliance in this regard, is placed on the Supreme Court ruling in case of UO and Anr vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr [20131 4 ITA Nos.2359-2360/Del/2022 263 ITR 706 (SC) wherein it was observed that liability to taxation is a legal situation: payment ... Contracting State. In our humble understanding, this is the legal position emerging out of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Azadi Bachao Andolan’s case (supra). The plea taken by the revenue that the assessee was not liable to tax which was anyway not taken by the Assessing Officer

Tyco Electronics Singapore Pte Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle- Int. Tax. 3(1)(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1760/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Tyco Electronics Singapore Vs Dcit, Pte Limited, Circle Intl. Taxation Te Park-22B, Doddenakundi 3(1)(1), 2Nd Phase Industrial Area, Delhi. Whitefield Road, Bengaluru – 560 048, Karnataka. Pan: Aadct9910C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate & Ms Somya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, It-Dr & Shri Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By Assessing Officer, Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, IT-DR &
Section 143(3)

further relied upon the CBDT circular no. 789 of 13.04.2000 and Apex Court order in the case of Union of India v/s Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706). The claim of the assessee that TRC is the final authority for determining the allowability of benefits under the DTAA ... considered this aspect along with CBDT circular no. 789 of 13.04.2000 and Apex Court order in the case of Union of India v/s Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706). The court has and observed that colorable devices used for tax evasion as dealt in the case of McDowell