Banyan & Berry v. CIT

222 ITR 831High Court1996#2665 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 366,459 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

Reverse Age Health Services Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1867/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Reverse Age Health Dcit Services Pte Ltd. Vs Circle – 3 (1) (1) 31, Tanglin Road, 03-04, St. International Taxation Regis Residences, New Delhi Singapore- 247912 Pan No.Aaicr9878A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Deepak Chopra, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2023

Section 143Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Reverse Age Health DCIT Services Pte Ltd. Vs Circle – 3 (1) (1) 31, Tanglin Road, 03-04, St. International Taxation Regis Residences, New Delhi Singapore- 247912 PAN No.AAICR9878A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Deepak Chopra, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 13/02/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 17/02/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated…

Mahavir Fleet Operators Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1373/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotemahavir Fleet Operators Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Gat No. 1349, Khandvenagar, Of Income Tax, Wagholi, Pune – 412307 Circle – 11(2), Pune Vs. Pan : Aafcm9834N

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 68

…ied the assessment findings to confirm the impugned addition only on protective basis which has attained finality for want of Revenue’s challenge thereto. This is an instance of a protective addition only which does not deserve to be upheld in light of (1996) 222 ITR 831 (Guj.) Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT defying nature and scope of such an assessment as follows: 42. Question No. 3 referred to us at the instance of the assessee need not detain us long. It is the settled law that where there is doubt or ambiguity about real entity in whose hands a particular income is to be assessed, the assessing authority is entitle…

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Nancy Divaker Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 853/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45Section 53A

…ght to highlight the fact that the Assessing Officer herein had made a “protective” addition of long term capital gains in light of the clinching fact that it had been substantively assessed in the latter A.Y. 2015-16. Case law Banyan and Berry Vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 831 (Guj) holds that a “protective” assessment is very much at par with the “substantive” one. We thus are of the opinion that the mere fact of the impugned addition having been made on protective basis would hardly provide any relief to the assessee in light of the overwhelming factual possession supporting the Revenue’s case in preceding paras. We…

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Nancy Divaker Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited, Secunderabad

ITA 852/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45Section 53A

…ght to highlight the fact that the Assessing Officer herein had made a “protective” addition of long term capital gains in light of the clinching fact that it had been substantively assessed in the latter A.Y. 2015-16. Case law Banyan and Berry Vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 831 (Guj) holds that a “protective” assessment is very much at par with the “substantive” one. We thus are of the opinion that the mere fact of the impugned addition having been made on protective basis would hardly provide any relief to the assessee in light of the overwhelming factual possession supporting the Revenue’s case in preceding paras. We…

M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, (OSD) Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1582/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1582/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Venus Infrastructure & D.C.I.T.,(Osd) Developers (P) Ltd., Vs. Central Circle-8, 801-802, Broadway Business Ahmedabad. Centre, Opp. Mayor’S Bungalow, Law Garden Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aahcs6254J

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, &For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT.D.R
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ A ’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1582/AHD/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Venus Infrastructure & D.C.I.T.,(OSD) Developers (P) Ltd., Vs. Central Circle-8, 801-802, Broadway Business Ahmedabad. Centre, Opp. Mayor’s Bungalow, Law garden Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. PAN: AAHCS6254J And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1568/AHD/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/s. Venus Infrastructure &…

Surya Kant Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 4(2), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7828/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 55(2)(aa)

…s. Walfort Shares and Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. (201) 326 ITR 1 (Supreme Court) (iii)UOI Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (Supreme Court) (iv) Porrits & Spencerr (Asia) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 222 (P &H High Court) (v) Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT(1996) 222 ITR 831 (Gujrat High Court ) (vi) CIT Vs. Special Prints Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 404 (Gujrat High Court) 5 Bhourka Engineering Industry Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 356 ITR 25 (Karnataka High Court). 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Lower Authorities have erred in the activity of dealing in shares of HCL Technologies Ltd. as a business activity. The assessee was wholl…

Adani Agro Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

ITA 1809/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Parin ShahFor Respondent: 17.09.2019
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI O. P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1809/Ahd/2012 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Adani Agro Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 8th Floor, Shikhar Nr. Circle – 1, Mithakhali Six Roads, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009. [PAN No.AABCA 3183 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Parin Shah Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R. Respondentby: 17.09.2019 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 20.09.2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the ass…

Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3462/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…ords's pronouncement in Craven , the view taken by the Madras High Court appears to be correct and we are inclined to agree with it.” 11.3 Further, we also note that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Banyan And Berry Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (222 ITR 831) held that tax planning within the law is permissible and only if any transaction which is ITA nos.834-986/AHD/2012 & No.3462-Ahd-2014 Asstt. Year 2008-09 18 reducing the tax liability cannot be regarded as a colorable device. The court also discussed the meaning of colorable device and case of McDowell & Co. Ltd vs. Commercial tax officer (supr…

Aura Securities Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…ords's pronouncement in Craven , the view taken by the Madras High Court appears to be correct and we are inclined to agree with it.” 11.3 Further, we also note that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Banyan And Berry Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (222 ITR 831) held that tax planning within the law is permissible and only if any transaction which is ITA nos.834-986/AHD/2012 & No.3462-Ahd-2014 Asstt. Year 2008-09 18 reducing the tax liability cannot be regarded as a colorable device. The court also discussed the meaning of colorable device and case of McDowell & Co. Ltd vs. Commercial tax officer (supr…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda

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

ITA 1659/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Panday, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

…e place our reliance on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India And Anr vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 705)wherein it was held as under: “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 court nowhere said that every action or inaction on the part of the taxpayer which results in reduction of tax liability to which he may be ITA Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (by assessee) and ITA No.1689/Ahd/2015 (by revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Lt…

The Dy. DIT (Exemption), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Friends of Wwb India, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assesseee both are dismissed

ITA 1608/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…All ER 495 (HL); [1990] 183 ITR 216 (HL), the view taken by the Madras High Court appears to be correct and we are inclined to agree with it. We may also refer to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Banyan and Berry v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1996] 222 ITR 831 at 850 where referring to McDowell's case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the court observed : "The court nowhere said that every action or inaction on the part of the taxpayer which results in reduction of tax liability to which he may be subjected in future, is to be viewed with suspicion and be treated as a device for avoidance of tax irrespective of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed and both the Assessee’s Cross Objections stand partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 730/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(3)Section 245D(4)Section 254Section 254C(3)

…eed to be adjusted against the income assessed in the present assessee’s hands. Following case laws were quoted to support the concept of liability being limited to one entity in the protective vs. substantive assessment. 1. Banyan and Berry Vs. C.I.T. (1996) 222 ITR 831 (GUJ) 2. C.I.T. vs. Smt. Durgawati Singh (1998) 234 ITR 249 (ALL) 3. Ram Lal Ganpat Rai vs. C.I.T. (1978) 462 (BOM) 4. CWT v. Begum Zahoor Qasim (2001) 248 ITR 482(Del.) 6.6.1 The Ld. AR also highlighted the issue of tax travels with income relying on rule 37BA for the credit of the tax paid on such income i.e. the credit should be given to the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed and both the Assessee’s Cross Objections stand partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 729/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(3)Section 245D(4)Section 254Section 254C(3)

…eed to be adjusted against the income assessed in the present assessee’s hands. Following case laws were quoted to support the concept of liability being limited to one entity in the protective vs. substantive assessment. 1. Banyan and Berry Vs. C.I.T. (1996) 222 ITR 831 (GUJ) 2. C.I.T. vs. Smt. Durgawati Singh (1998) 234 ITR 249 (ALL) 3. Ram Lal Ganpat Rai vs. C.I.T. (1978) 462 (BOM) 4. CWT v. Begum Zahoor Qasim (2001) 248 ITR 482(Del.) 6.6.1 The Ld. AR also highlighted the issue of tax travels with income relying on rule 37BA for the credit of the tax paid on such income i.e. the credit should be given to the…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―G‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1415 to 1417/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2015-16) Shri Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs. ACIT, W-29, Greater Kailash Part-II, Central Circle-3, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 1483 & 1484/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14, and 2014-15) Mrs. Uma Singal, Vs. ACIT, W-29, Greater Kailash Part-II, Central Circle-3, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 1479 to 1481/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2015-16) Mrs. Ritu Si…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―G‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1415 to 1417/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2015-16) Shri Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs. ACIT, W-29, Greater Kailash Part-II, Central Circle-3, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 1483 & 1484/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14, and 2014-15) Mrs. Uma Singal, Vs. ACIT, W-29, Greater Kailash Part-II, Central Circle-3, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 1479 to 1481/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2015-16) Mrs. Ritu Si…

Madhu Sarda, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the

ITA 7410/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Mrs. Madhu Sarda , 38,Vikas Center, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 Pan: Aajps 5135R Appellant/ Assessee Versus Income Tax Officer, -19(4) Mumbai Respondent/ Revenue

For Respondent: Sh. V. Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…ITA No. 7410/M/2012 Madhu Sarda IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER In the matter of Mrs. Madhu Sarda , 38,Vikas Center, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 PAN: AAJPS 5135R Appellant/ Assessee Versus Income Tax Officer, -19(4) Mumbai Respondent/ Revenue Assessee by Sh. Harish M. Kapadia : Advocate Revenue by : Sh. V. Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR) Date of hearing : 09.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 13, Mumbai vs. M/S. Lotus Investments Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3612/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2017AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri P K Bansal, Vp & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanhaFor Respondent: Shri Shri Pratap Singh (CIT –DR)
Section 250(4)

…as enunciated in McDowell's case for checking on colourable devices, have been considered. (a) CIT V. Aspinwall and Co. (Tranvancore Ltd.), 212 ITR 525 (Ken). (b) CIT V. Dhawan Investment and Trading Co. Ltd., 238 ITR 486 (Cal.) (c) Banyan and Berry V. CIT, 222 ITR 831 (Guj.) (d) Valbhappan (M.V.) V. I.T.O., 170 ITR 238 (Mad.) The AR also stated that the McDowell's case has also been explained and distinguished by the Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Aandolan.-263 ITR 706. It has therefore been contended that considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the ratio of Supreme Court decision…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4852/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…appellant has every right to plan his affairs to reduce the tax incidence. In the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 706 (SC), it has been held that every attempt at tax planning cannot be held to be legitimate advantages. In the case of Bunyan and Berry, 222 ITR 831 (Gujarat), while commenting on the decision in the case of McDowell & Co, 154 ITR 148 (SC), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed as under: "The court (i.e. the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell) nowhere said that every action or inaction on the part of the taxpayer which results in reduction of tax liability to which he may be subjected i…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2562/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…appellant has every right to plan his affairs to reduce the tax incidence. In the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 706 (SC), it has been held that every attempt at tax planning cannot be held to be legitimate advantages. In the case of Bunyan and Berry, 222 ITR 831 (Gujarat), while commenting on the decision in the case of McDowell & Co, 154 ITR 148 (SC), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed as under: "The court (i.e. the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell) nowhere said that every action or inaction on the part of the taxpayer which results in reduction of tax liability to which he may be subjected i…

Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 11(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…appellant has every right to plan his affairs to reduce the tax incidence. In the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 706 (SC), it has been held that every attempt at tax planning cannot be held to be legitimate advantages. In the case of Bunyan and Berry, 222 ITR 831 (Gujarat), while commenting on the decision in the case of McDowell & Co, 154 ITR 148 (SC), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed as under: "The court (i.e. the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell) nowhere said that every action or inaction on the part of the taxpayer which results in reduction of tax liability to which he may be subjected i…