← 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

Seabird Marine Services Private Limited, Jamnagar vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Jamnagar, Jamangar

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

Zyma Laboratories Ltd. vs. ACIT [2006] 7 SOT 164 (Mumbai Trib.) (xv) Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT [2002] 122 taxmann.om 562 (SC) (xvi) Azadi Bachao Andolan vs. UOI [132 Taxman 373] (SC) and (xvii) Banyan & Berry vs. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 831 (Guj). 14. On the other hand

ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Metenare Global Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 5809/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 5245/Del/2018: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5246/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 8055/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Amar Devi Family Welfare Trust, Vs Acit, F-73, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-17, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaata4455B Ita No. 5811/Del/2017: Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 5812/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Amar Devi Family Welfare Trust, 1St Floor, B-18, Model Town Road, Central Circle-17, New Delhi Jalandhar, Punjab-144005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaata4455B Ita No. 5809/Del/2017: Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 5810/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Acit, Vs M/S Metenere Global Ltd., Central Circle-17, 138-139, Ghazipur, New Delhi Delhi-110096 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg0722E Assessee By : Sh. Pradip Dinodia, Adv. & Sh. R. K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Pradip Dinodia, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153B

assessee’s case. Faced with this situation, we wish to quote Union of India and Anr. Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr. (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) and Linklaters LLP vs. ITO (2010) 9 ITR (Trib.) 217 (Mum) that tax treaties between two sovereigns could not be literally interpreted