TPcases

Database of Transfer Pricing Case Laws

India vs Azadi Bachao Andolan, 2003, Supreme Court

Posted on October 7, 2003 | By Courts of India

Category: Tax Avoidance Schemes | Tag: Colourable devices, Sham transactions, Tax planning, Tax schemes

« Prev | Next »

In this case the Court held that while a “colourable device” could result in the transaction being considered a sham, that did not mean that tax planning within the law will not be permitted.

Related Guidelines

Supplemental Guidance

India vs Vodafone International Holdings BV, 2012, Supreme Court, No 733 of 2012In the Vodafone case, the Supreme Court of India found that tax planning within the law will be valid as long as it does not amount to a colourable device....

Canada vs McKesson Canada Corporation, December 2013, Tax Court of Canada, Case No. 2013 TCC 404McKesson is a multinational group engaged in the wholesale distribution of pharmaceuticals. Its Canadian subsidiary, McKesson Canada, entered into a factoring agreement in 2002 with its ultimate parent, McKesson International Holdings III Sarl in Luxembourg. Under the terms of the agreement, McKesson International Holdings III Sarl agreed to purchase the...

New Zealand vs Alesco New Zealand Ltd March 2013 Court of Appeal NZCA 40In 2003 Alesco NZ bought two other companies in New Zealand. Its Australian owner, Alesco Corporation, funded the acquisitions by advancing the purchase amount of $78 million. In consideration Alesco NZ issued a series of optional convertible notes (OCNs or notes). The notes were non-interest bearing for a fixed term and...

New Zealand vs Honk Land Trustee Limited, 10 March 2017, Court of AppealThe Court of Appeal upheld decisions of the High Court confirming the Commissioner of Inland Revenue’s disallowance of a $1,116,000 management fee for income tax purposes. The Court of Appeal dismissed Honk Land Trustees Limited’s (“HLT”) appeal on the following alternative grounds: (1) there was no satisfactory evidence to show...

Netherlands vs Hunkemöller B.V., January 2020, AG opinion – before the Supreme Court, Case No ECLI:NL:PHR:2020:102To acquire companies and resell them with capital gains a French Investment Fund distributed the capital of its investors (€ 5.4 billion in equity) between a French Fund Commun de Placement à Risques (FCPRs) and British Ltds managed by the French Investment Fund. For the purpose of acquiring the [X]...

New Zealand vs Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd., December 2008, Supreme Court, Case No [2008] NZSC 115, SC 43/2007 and 44/2007The tax scheme in the Ben Nevis-case involved land owned by the subsidiary of a charitable foundation being licensed to a group of single purpose investor loss attributing qualifying companies (LAQC’s). The licensees were responsible for planting, maintaining and harvesting the forest through a forestry management company. The investors paid...

US vs The Talbots Inc., March 2011, Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board, Case No 79 Mass. App. Ct. 159In the case of The Talbots, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Talbots appealed a decision by the Appellate Tax Board that upheld the Commissioner of Revenue’s refusal to abate certain corporate excise taxes. The taxes were related to disallowed deductions for royalty payments made by Talbots to its wholly...

Czech Republic vs EVEREST servis s.r.o., September 2023, Regional Court, Case No 54 Af 6/2022 – 233At issue was VAT and tax deduction for costs of media and advertising space that EVEREST allegedly purchased from Koukni and Concept s.r.o. and Concept s.r.o.. A tax assessment was issued to EVEREST based on (1) failure to prove the receipt of the supply of “media and advertising space” to...

TPcases

India vs Azadi Bachao Andolan, 2003, Supreme Court

Related Guidelines

Supplemental Guidance

Related Case Law