← All Phrases

“Vodafone case”

Judicial DoctrinesVodafoneVodafone20 judgments

PROPERTY PLUS REALTORES,DELHI vs. PR CIT CENTRAL DELHI-2, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3407/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263

statutory limits. Here it is\nsubmitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs. Azadi Bachao\nAndolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) and Vodafone Case (2012) 341\nITR 1 (SC) protect legitimate tax planning absent sham.\n\n33. In this regard, provisions of Rule 10U may be considered. Rule

PROPERTY PLUS REALTORS,DELHI vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI 2, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3406/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263

statutory limits. Here it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) and Vodafone Case (2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC) protect legitimate tax planning absent sham. 33. In this regard, provisions of Rule 10U may be considered. Rule

DCIT CIRCLE 61(1), DELHI vs. SUKHBIR SINGH CHABRA HUF, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.315/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Sukhbir Singh Chabra Huf Circle 61(1), Vs. 6, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. Motia Khan, Delhi. Pan No.Aaahs5683P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 92C

back to Pooni Sugars Ltd. Depreciation claimed by the assessee was disallowed alleging the arrangement as a camouflage. Hon'ble Court applying rationale of Vodafone case held that: "....in the absence of any material to pronounce on the genuineness of the transaction herein, the mere fact that what had been ... cannot lead to a conclusion that the transaction is a sham one." In Michael E Desa v. ITO (2021) 191 ITD 691 (Mum), applying Vodafone case, ITAT has held that though there is thin distinction between a tax planning and tax avoidance, however, a transaction cannot be disregarded just because

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

thereafter the desired event occurs leading to the intended tax benefit.The key determinants inter-alia as pointed out by Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Vodafone case are whether the entity exists for commercial purpose, whether it is entering into transaction ofsay asset purchase, asset sale, loans, strategic investment

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 339/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 253Section 6(3)

thereafter the desired event occurs leading to the\nintended tax benefit.The key determinants inter-alia as\npointed out by Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Vodafone case are\nwhether the entity exists for commercial purpose, whether it\nis entering into transaction ofsay asset purchase, asset sale,\nloans, strategic investment

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S WELSPUN GLOBAL BRANDS LTD , MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2184/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: 2.1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the LdFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2009-10 (WP No. 871/2014) when facts of the instant case are different? In the Vodafone case, capital was inbound whereas in the instant case capital is outbound in the form of share premium being paid to purchase shares of foreign ... excessive valuation. The petitioner in Vodafone case had argued that the Income Tax Act does not tax inflow of capital into the country so as to impede its coming into India. However, in instant case capital is flowing out of India leading to Base Erosion and Profit shifting and thus

BRIJ RAJ SINGH RATHAUR,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-41, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.315/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Sukhbir Singh Chabra Huf Circle 61(1), Vs. 6, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. Motia Khan, Delhi. Pan No.Aaahs5683P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 92C

back to Pooni Sugars Ltd. Depreciation claimed by the assessee was disallowed alleging the arrangement as a camouflage. Hon'ble Court applying rationale of Vodafone case held that: "....in the absence of any material to pronounce on the genuineness of the transaction herein, the mere fact that what had been ... cannot lead to a conclusion that the transaction is a sham one." In Michael E Desa v. ITO (2021) 191 ITD 691 (Mum), applying Vodafone case, ITAT has held that though there is thin distinction between a tax planning and tax avoidance, however, a transaction cannot be disregarded just because

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 111/IND/2015[2013-14 (Quarter 4)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

override DTAA. Hence, the subject payment received from Vodafone is not taxable as 'royalty' as per DTAA. The KHC in the aforesaid Vodafone case has reversed the ITAT judgment on this point. Substantial questions of law 2,3 and 4 in the aforesaid KHC judgment of Vodafone (as reproduced above

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 110/IND/2015[2013-14 (for first three quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

override DTAA. Hence, the subject payment received from Vodafone is not taxable as 'royalty' as per DTAA. The KHC in the aforesaid Vodafone case has reversed the ITAT judgment on this point. Substantial questions of law 2,3 and 4 in the aforesaid KHC judgment of Vodafone (as reproduced above

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 109/IND/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

override DTAA. Hence, the subject payment received from Vodafone is not taxable as 'royalty' as per DTAA. The KHC in the aforesaid Vodafone case has reversed the ITAT judgment on this point. Substantial questions of law 2,3 and 4 in the aforesaid KHC judgment of Vodafone (as reproduced above

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

ITA 265/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 263

override DTAA. Hence, the subject payment received from Vodafone is not taxable as 'royalty' as per DTAA. The KHC in the aforesaid Vodafone case has reversed the ITAT judgment on this point. Substantial questions of law 2,3 and 4 in the aforesaid KHC judgment of Vodafone (as reproduced above

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL

ITA 415/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 263

override DTAA. Hence, the subject payment received from Vodafone is not taxable as 'royalty' as per DTAA. The KHC in the aforesaid Vodafone case has reversed the ITAT judgment on this point. Substantial questions of law 2,3 and 4 in the aforesaid KHC judgment of Vodafone (as reproduced above

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

ITA 1218/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

this case, preference shares were issued at par and redeemed at par with the commitment to pay 8.5% of the dividend. The reliance of Vodafone case (supra) by the assessee is not applicable in this case as discussed above. Page No. 32 ITA NO. 752 & 2541/MUM/2022

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR vs. ORIENT PAPER MILLS PROP. M/S ORIENT PAPERS &,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 35/JAB/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

gave rise to income-taxable in India. The facts of present case are distinguishable. The amendments made to section 9 of the Act post Vodafone case with retrospective effect will also not be attracted, as the plant and machinery was supplied outside India and business income accrued in Italy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR vs. ORIENT PAPER MILLS PROP. M/S ORIENT PAPERS &,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 34/JAB/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

gave rise to income-taxable in India. The facts of present case are distinguishable. The amendments made to section 9 of the Act post Vodafone case with retrospective effect will also not be attracted, as the plant and machinery was supplied outside India and business income accrued in Italy

JM FINANCIAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3987/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

regard to the applicability of the decision of the Apex Court in Vodafone (supra) to assessee, the Assessing Officer has held that – (i) In Vodafone case the parties involved were non-residents whereas in assessee's case the impugned transaction is between two entities (ii) In Vodafone case the issue ... taxability u/s.28(ii) was not adjudicated (iii) In Vodafone case, the issue was with regard to the taxability of the profit whereas in assessee's case the taxability is not in dispute since the assessee itself has offered the income to tax (iv) In Vodafone case the main business

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. J.M. FINANCIAL LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3925/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

regard to the applicability of the decision of the Apex Court in Vodafone (supra) to assessee, the Assessing Officer has held that – (i) In Vodafone case the parties involved were non-residents whereas in assessee's case the impugned transaction is between two entities (ii) In Vodafone case the issue ... taxability u/s.28(ii) was not adjudicated (iii) In Vodafone case, the issue was with regard to the taxability of the profit whereas in assessee's case the taxability is not in dispute since the assessee itself has offered the income to tax (iv) In Vodafone case the main business

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 65/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

learned CIT(A) has further erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the applicable ratio as laid down by Mumbai Tribunal in Vodafone case (2010- TIOL-789-ITAT-MUM) while dealing with the applicability of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Coca

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 513/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

learned CIT(A) has further erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the applicable ratio as laid down by Mumbai Tribunal in Vodafone case (2010- TIOL-789-ITAT-MUM) while dealing with the applicability of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Coca

THR INFRASTRUCTURE PTE LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIR.-3(1)(1), INTL TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2022[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Tiger Globals (AAR), BID Co, (AAR) and Redington (Chennai High Court). The relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Vodafone Case , in regard to sufficiency of TRC, at para-98, is reproduced as under:- 33 THR Infrastructure Pte. Ltd. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ... Country of Residence of the intermediary concern. 5.2.3 In this regard, it is useful to refer the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Vodafone Case at para-67 is very relevant, which is reproduced as under:- “67. "It is generally accepted that the group parent company is involved