Banyan & Berry v. CIT

222 ITR 831High Court1996#2698 most cited

What is Banyan & Berry v. CIT authority for?

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.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Banyan & Berry v. CIT · 222 ITR 831 · tax planning vs tax avoidance · colourable device · sham transaction · substance over form · McDowell & Co Ltd distinction · Azadi Bachao Andolan approval · Section 90(1) · DTAA benefits

Also reported as

84 Taxmann 515

Sections most often in play

Section 35DSection 40(a)(i)Section 80HHCSection 143(3)Section 28(iiid)Section 35(2AB)Section 2(47)Section 35

Issues it is cited on

dtaa benefitgaarazadi bachao andolancommercial substancecolourable devicesection 90(1)section 10(33)substance over formsection 2(31)section 35dtreaty benefitssection 42

Judgments citing Banyan & Berry v. CIT

DCIT - 19(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI vs. DISHANT DEEPAK SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4281/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh
Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

…the facts of the present case. cannot be applied on the facts of the present case. On similar facts, Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in similar facts, Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in similar facts, Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Banyan & Berry Vs CIT (1996) (222 ITR 831) (Gujarat) has Banyan & Berry Vs CIT (1996) (222 ITR 831) (Gujarat) has Banyan & Berry Vs CIT (1996) (222 ITR 831) (Gujarat) has distinguished the case of distinguished the case of McDowell & Co Ltd and held as under, McDowell & Co Ltd and held as under, - "What has been deprecated as tax planning for "What has been deprecated as tax planning for…

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2394/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: \nShri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

…um belong to the period during which the assessee firm was in existence and carried out its business. In fact the case of the assessee is well supported by the following decisions:\nI. CIT Vs. United Trading Co. 212 ITR 532 (Raj.).\nII. Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT 222 ITR 831 (Guj.).\n16. In the case of United Trading Co. (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan\nhas explained the scope of Sec. 189 and it is held as under:\n“5. We have considered the matter. A deeming fiction is created by s.189\nin respect of a business or profession carried on by the firm which is\ndiscontinued or the firm is dissolved as if ther…

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: \nShri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

…of the firms and discontinuance of the business. The Ld. Counsel\nrelied on the following decisions in support of his plea.\ni. CIT Vs. Bhagat & CO. 182 ITR 212 (del.).\nii. George Talkies Circuit Vs. CIT 171 ITR 386 (Raj.).\niii. iii. Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT 222 ITR 831(Raj.).\n6. He submits that the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer and\nissuance notice u/s.148 of the Act to the assessee for the A.Y. 2004-05 are\ntotally bad in law and have to be cancelled. He pleaded for cancelling the notice\nissued by the Assessing Officer u/s.148 to the assessee for the A.Y. 2004-05.\nPer contra, the Ld. DR for…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HARESH SHANTICHAND JHAVERI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Haresh Shantichand Income Tax, Ward – 4(1)(1), बनाम Jhaveri, Room No. 642, Aaykar Bhavan, Ps 6-7 Rotunda Bldg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Samachar Marg, Mumbai – Mumbai–400 020, Maharashtra 400 023, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpj8053B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Shantilal Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 147

…by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co Ltd. Vs CTO (1977) (1 SCR 914) (SC) could not be applied on the facts of the present case. On similar facts, he placed reliance on hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Banyan & Berry Vs CIT (1996) (222 ITR 831) (Gujarat), Sandipkumar Parsottam bhai Patel Vs ITO (2022) (137 taxmann.com 373) (Surat-Trib.), Champalal Gopiram Agarwal [2023] 155 taxmann.com 66 (Gujarat)/[2024] 460 ITR 277 (Gujarat)[25-07- 2023]. In the case of Gokul Fuelchen Pvt Ltd., ITA No. P a g e | 12 A.Y. 2015-16 Haresh Shantichand Jhaveri 187/Mum/2024 dated 29.07.2024 has held that…

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)

…5976/Mum/2012) (Trib- Mumbai) (xiv) 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, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. CIT-DR took us through the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act, wherein he has especially drawn our attention to clause-(i) of Explanation 1 of sub section (1) of Section 115JB of the Act, which reads as follows: “115JB(1): Notwithstandin…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. WELSH AND BRETON BLENDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 603/HYD/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 194HSection 40

…with subscription within the frame-work of law 26 ITA.No.603/Hyd./2024 unless the same falls in the category of colourable device. This principle has been supported by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Banyan And Berry vs., CIT [1996] 222 ITR 831 (Guj.) which has been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs., Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC). Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer is erred in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has designed tax avoidance method for payment of tax which is nothing but a colourab…

MOHAMMED SALEEM ABDULKADER KAJALWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(3), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 536/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…eputy Commissioner Of Income Tax reported in 2002 82 ITD 626 (Mumbai) after considering the decisions of the Apex Court in Mc Dowell Co Ltd as reported in 1986 AIR 649, 1985 SCR (3) 791and Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Banyan & Berry v. CIT[1996] 222 ITR 831 at 851 has held: "The gist of these authorities appears to us to be that whereas tax planning can be tolerated, tax evasion by dubious means cannot be countenanced. Where the transaction put through or steps taken by the assessee need not have been taken in order to achieve a commercial result or object, and were taken only with a view to reducin…

ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [PAN:BKJPB5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Sh…

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6838/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)

…TTO [1988] 170 ITR 238 and the Gujarat High Court in Banyan and Deny vs. CIT (1996) ITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 ITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 ITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 222 ITR 831. Reference was also made to the judgment in CWT v. Arvind Narottam [1988] 173 FIR 479 and Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667. It: was further observed that the word "device" or "sham" could not be used to defeat the effect of a legal situation. 6. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the facts of this case…

ORCHID PHARMA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 73/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.73/Chny/2017 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(i)

…y stipulations cannot be taken away by the assessing authority on account of mere adverse presumption. In support of its contentions the Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Banyan and Berry 222 ITR 831 and of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Walfort share and stock broker private limited 192 taxmann 211. We have also noted that the Ld. DRP has also not confirmed the order of the Ld. AO with any detailed findings and has only confirmed Ld. AO’s findings in a summary manner. Accordingly, we are of the view that the addition made by the Ld. AO is…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT. RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1496/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2003-2004
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 40Section 80H

…every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges." 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view token by the Madras High Court in M. V. Valliappan v. TTO [1988] 170 ITR 238 and the Gujarat High Court in Banyan and Deny vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 831. Reference was also made to the judgment in CWT v. Arvind Narottam [1988] 173 FIR 479 and Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667. It: was further observed that the word "device" or "sham" could not be used to defeat the effect of a legal situation. 6. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the facts of this case,…

BAJAJ HOLDNGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( ERSTWHILE BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges." 5. The hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view token by the Madras High Court in M. V. Valliappan v. TTO [1988] 170 ITR 238 and the Gujarat High Court in Banyan and Deny vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 831. Reference was also made to the judgment in CWT v. Arvind Narottam [1988] 173 FIR 479 and Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667. It: was further observed that the word "device" or "sham" could not be used to defeat the effect of a legal situation. 6. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the facts of this case,…

ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges." 5. The hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view token by the Madras High Court in M. V. Valliappan v. TTO [1988] 170 ITR 238 and the Gujarat High Court in Banyan and Deny vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 831. Reference was also made to the judgment in CWT v. Arvind Narottam [1988] 173 FIR 479 and Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667. It: was further observed that the word "device" or "sham" could not be used to defeat the effect of a legal situation. 6. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the facts of this case,…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 4372/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges." 5. The hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view token by the Madras High Court in M. V. Valliappan v. TTO [1988] 170 ITR 238 and the Gujarat High Court in Banyan and Deny vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 831. Reference was also made to the judgment in CWT v. Arvind Narottam [1988] 173 FIR 479 and Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667. It: was further observed that the word "device" or "sham" could not be used to defeat the effect of a legal situation. 6. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the facts of this case,…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4236/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges." 5. The hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view token by the Madras High Court in M. V. Valliappan v. TTO [1988] 170 ITR 238 and the Gujarat High Court in Banyan and Deny vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 831. Reference was also made to the judgment in CWT v. Arvind Narottam [1988] 173 FIR 479 and Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667. It: was further observed that the word "device" or "sham" could not be used to defeat the effect of a legal situation. 6. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the facts of this case,…

BALALJI LIFESTYLE REALTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3172/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3172/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Balaji Lifestyle बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-7(1) Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. 118/120, Ashoka House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb0234H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal (Adv) Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai Dated 02.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature So Does Not Require Any Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri N. M. Porwal (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 288ASection 69B

…i Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC), and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Major Metal Vs. Union of India (2012) 19 taxmann.com 176 (Bom), and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mcdowel & Co Vs. CTO 154 ITR 148 and Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT 222 ITR 831 held that Rs.2,85,50,000/- brought in the books of account of assessee on share capital/premium needs to be brought to tax as per the provisions u/s 68 of the Act. And accordingly, he added Rs. 2,85,50,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein assessee raised the legal issue against reopening of the assessme…

LEAPFROG FINANCIAL INCLUSION INDIA (II) LTD,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 366/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…unless the revenue losses are significant compared to the other tax and non-tax benefits from the treaty, or the treaty shopping leads to other tax abuses....... XXX 134. We may also refer to the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Banyan & Berry v. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 831/84 Taxman 515 where referring to McDowell & Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), the Court observed: "... The facts and circumstances which lead to McDowell's decision leave us in no doubt that the principle enunciated in the above case has not affected the freedom of the citizen to act in a manner according to his requirements, his wishes in the manner of d…

LEAPFROG FINANCIAL INCLUSION INDIA (II) LTD,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 365/DEL/2023[2019-2]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…unless the revenue losses are significant compared to the other tax and non-tax benefits from the treaty, or the treaty shopping leads to other tax abuses....... XXX 134. We may also refer to the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Banyan & Berry v. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 831/84 Taxman 515 where referring to McDowell & Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), the Court observed: "... The facts and circumstances which lead to McDowell's decision leave us in no doubt that the principle enunciated in the above case has not affected the freedom of the citizen to act in a manner according to his requirements, his wishes in the manner of d…

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

Section 2(24)Section 35DSection 37(2)Section 80H

…bterfuges." 5. The hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view token by the Madras High Court in M. V. Valliappan v. TTO [1988] 170 Page No.| 43 C.O.No. 96/MUM/2002 Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd ITR 238 and the Gujarat High Court in Banyan and Deny vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 831. Reference was also made to the judgment in CWT v. Arvind Narottam [1988] 173 FIR 479 and Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667. It: was further observed that the word "device" or "sham" could not be used to defeat the effect of a legal situation. 6. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the facts of this case,…

SRI.JOHN MATHEW N,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-2, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri John Mathew N. The Income Tax Officer Neroth House Ward - 2, Alleppey Vs. No. 1, Jubilee Road Alappuzha [Pan: Acupm8885D] Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair & Shri P.K. Biju, Advocates Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Appeal By The Assessee Challenges The Validity Of The Reassessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 20.11.2007 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-02, Since Upheld In First Appeal Vide Order Dated 24.01.2018 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam (‘Cit(A)’ For Short). 2.1 At The Outset, Shri Anil D. Nair, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee-Appellant, Would Submit That The Basis Of The Assessee’S Challenge Is Two-Fold: (A) Non-Supply Of The Reasons Recorded; & (B) True & Full Disclosure Of All Material Facts Relating To The Income Escaping Assessment By The Assessee Per His Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair &For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 230ASection 234B

…ry premise of which is to protect it’s interest, would be destructive of the concept and purpose of a protective assessment, a travesty of justice and, in fact, against the law thereon (Lalji Haridas v. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387 (SC); Banyan & Berry v. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 831 (Guj); CIT v. Durgawati Singh [1998] 234 ITR 249 (All)). That the assessment was substantively made in the hands of the AOP is another matter and of little consequence. Why, in the facts of the case, the status, individual or AOP, in which the assessed income may finally survive, shall stand to be determined in the appellate proceedings in the as…

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3