How many judgments cite Banyan & Berry v. CIT?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite Banyan & Berry v. CIT (222 ITR 831), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Banyan & Berry v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 35D, Section 40(a)(i), Section 80HHC, Section 143(3), Section 28(iiid), Section 35(2AB).

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.

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 35D Section 40(a)(i)Section 80HHC Section 143(3)Section 28(iiid)Section 35(2AB)Section 2(47)Section 35

Issues it is cited on

dtaa benefit gaar azadi bachao andolan commercial substance colourable device section 90(1)section 10(33)substance over form section 2(31)section 35d treaty benefits section 42

Judgments citing Banyan & Berry v. CIT

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Bhuta Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1291/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ue at hand. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in McDwell’s case is not universally applicable, as has been held in the following cases Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706(SC) CWT Vs Arvind Narottarn 173 ITR 479 (SC). Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT 222 ITR 831 (Guj). Mathuram Agarwal Vs. State of Madhya pradesh 8 SCC 667. We also found that the documents filed by the assessee along with case laws were forwarded by CIT(A) for remand report to the AO vide letter dated 16-12-2013 and vide letter dated 31-12-2013, the AO sent his remand report. Copy of which was given by CIT(A) to the assessee and after ca…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Indra Gaggar, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 808/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.808, 1295, 1294, 1296 & 809/M/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Dcit Cen Cir 8(1), Smt. Indra Gaggar, R.No.656, 6Th Floor, 41-42, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Gaurav Extension, M.K. Road, Film City Road., बनाम/Vs. बनाम बनाम बनाम Mumbai – 400 020 Gokuldham, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 063 Pan: Afxpg3889B (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) ("&यथ% "&यथ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% "&यथ% "&यथ% Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. Ghosh, D.R. सुनवाई क' तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2016 सुनवाई क' तारीख सुनवाई क' तारीख सुनवाई क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 घोषणा क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Ghosh, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27Section 31Section 68

…decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in McDwell's case is not universally applicable, as has been held in the following cases :- i) Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706(SC) ii) CWT Vs. Arvind Narottam 173 ITR 479 (SC) iii) Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT 222 ITR 831 (Guj) iv) Mathuram Agarwal Vs. State of Madhyapradesh 8 SCC 667 We also found that the documents filed by the assessee along with case laws were forwarded by CIT(A) for remand report to the AO vide letter dated 16-12-2013 and vide letter dated 31-12-2013, the AO sent his remand report. Copy of which was given by CIT(A) to the assessee and after…

Credit Suisse Business Analystics (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt.CIT- 15(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 993/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-DR

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 78

…ascertainable due to various constraints, that the value of shares could be taken only at Rs. 10 per share, that the receipt of use premium of Rs. 187/- per-share was a device to avoid tax. He relied upon the cases of McDowell (154 ITR 148), Banyan and Berry (222 ITR 831) and Azadi Bachao Andolan and others (256 ITR 563) and held that the intention behind the transaction would be the guiding factor to decide as to whether the judicial process could approve the transaction. He also analyse the provisions of section 78 of the Companies Act(CA)and examined as to whether the premium collected by the assessee had been…

Commr.of Income Tax Delhi I vs. M/S Abhinandan Invest.Ltd

ITA/130/2001HC Delhi19 Nov 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel withFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms

Section 260A

…ery attempt at tax planning was illegitimate and must be ignored. 40. The Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra) approved the following passage from the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Banyan and Berry v. Commissioner Of Income Tax: (1996) 222 ITR 831 (Guj):- ITA130/2001 Page 30 of 44 “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 legitimacy or genuineness of…