How many judgments cite CIT v. Motors & General Stores?

66 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Motors & General Stores (66 ITR 692), spanning 2012 to 2026.

CIT v. Motors & General Stores

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Motors & General Stores come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 234C, Section 271(1)(c), Section 142(1), Section 1872: Section 62, Section 1963: Rule 29.

66 ITR 692Supreme Court of India1967#1733 most cited

What is CIT v. Motors & General Stores authority for?

Income tax authorities cannot deduce the nature of a document from purported intention, go behind the document, consider the substance over form, or rewrite it merely to suit the revenue's purpose.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Motors & General Stores · 66 ITR 692 · income tax authorities powers · going behind documents · substance over form · rewriting documents · nature of document · purported intention · Revenue's purpose · documentary evidence interpretation · Section 143(3) · Section 142(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234C Section 271(1)(c)Section 142(1)Section 1872: Section 62 Section 1963: Rule 29 Section 201(1A)Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)scheme of arrangement section 40(a)(ii)section 55 demerger business expediency profits and gains of business or profession section 80ib rule of consistency section 48 section 92ca(3)interest under section 234b

Judgments citing CIT v. Motors & General Stores

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-000152-000152 - 2026Supreme Court09 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 47

…e or exchange, so as to give rise to taxable business income. 4.3. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the authorities relied upon by the High Court were distinguishable from the present case. In Orient Trading, 8 (1991) 191 ITR 647 (SC) 9 (1967) 66 ITR 692 (SC) 9 the assessee had exchanged shares of one existing company for shares of another; that case did not involve amalgamation or dissolution of the company whose shares were exchanged. Likewise, the English decision in Royal Insurance Co. Ltd v. Stephen10 dealt with realisation of investments, not stock- in-trade by an insurance company…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GANDHI REALITY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT. (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 230

…iii)Toyo Engineering India Limited v DCIT, BOM (33 taxmann.com 560) (Mumbai) (ix)UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706) (SC) (x)Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 341 ITR 1 (SC) (xi)CIT v. Motors & General Stores (P.) Ltd [1967] 66 ITR 692 (SC) Gandhi Reality(I) Pvt. Ltd (xii)Dalmia Power Ltd. v. ACIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 252 (SC) (xiii)Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. v. Department of income tax [2012] 24 taxmann.com 323 (Guj.) 30. We note that merger was not intended for providing any financial stability to the transferor companies' business prospects as alleged by the AO. Nowhere…

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…ttled legal precedent that neither\nany word can be added in the statute, nor the scope of statute can be enlarged\nwhen the language is plain, clear and unambiguous. In this context, we rely on the\nfollowing judgements:\nCIT vs. Motors & General Stores Ltd. 66 ITR 692 (SC) No tax can be\nimposed on the subject without words in the Act clearly showing an intention to lay\na burden upon him. In other words, the subject cannot be taxed unless he comes\nwithin the letter of the law, and not merely the spirit of the law.\nIn the case of Sri Jeyaram Educational Trust & Ors., v. A.G.Syed Mohideen\n& Ors. reported in 2…

M/S. DRAIPL-MSKEL(JV),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 249/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…458 (Mum Trib); (iv) Harmuny Entertainment (P.) Ltd. (2023) 157 taxmann.com 547 (Kol Trib). (v) Kanhaiya Lal Moti Lal (1969) 72 ITR 507 (Allahabad HC); (vi) Maharaja Shri Umed Mills (1984) 148 ITR 72 A (Raj. HC) (vii) Motors & General Stores (P.) Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 692 (SC). In substance and in practice, it is the appellant who carried out the scope of work assigned and transferred to it, duly so approved by NHAI and not by the Main Contractor/Longjian. It is relevant to note that Main Contractor did not develop the same stretch of road. 5.4. Further the signing of Running Account bills by the Main Contractor…

M/S. DRAIPAL-MSKEL (JV),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2449/AHD/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. PINNATHEVAR PALANICHAMY, MADURAI

ITA 3015/CHNY/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025

For Appellant: Mr.Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132

…ge of dates being made by the Revenue to suit their purpose, in our considered view, was irrational, whimsical and unjustified. In this context, we gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Motors & General Stores (P.) Ltd. (66 ITR 692) wherein it was held that "it is, therefore, obvious that it is not open to the income tax authorities to deduce the nature of the document from the purported intention, by going behind the document or to consider the ::19 :: substance of the matter or to accept it in part and reject it in part or to rewrite the document, merely to suite purpose o…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JAGANNATHAN SEKAT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2220/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…n, we gainfully refer to the decision of support of our foregoing conclusion, we gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Motors & General Stores Motors & General Stores (P.) Ltd. (66 ITR 692) 92)wherein it was observed that,"it is, therefore, "it is, therefore, obvious that it is not open to the income tax authorities to deduce the obvious that it is not open to the income tax authorities to deduce the obvious that it is not open to the income tax authorities to deduce the nature of the document from the purported intention, by going…

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & CO 76/MUM/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire BKC, 7th Floor, Room no 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. PAN/GIR No. AAACH2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire BKC, 7th Floor, Room no 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-40002…

CRM SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effect

ITA 1519/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 254

…owing decisions, for the proposition that in the absence of a suggestion of any bad faith or fraud, the liability to tax depends upon the meaning and content of the language of the document embodying the transaction: - CIT v. Motor & General Stores (P) Ltd.: 66 ITR 692 (SC) - CIT v. B.M. Kharwar: 72 ITR 603 (SC) 16. Ld. Sr. Counsel, has submitted that section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides for alteration in the original contract upon consent of the parties to the contract, meaning thereby, that as such, alteration in a contract is not prohibited under the law. He thus contended that as the payment…

CRM SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effect

ITA 1518/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 254

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Novartis India Limited v. Asst. Commissioner of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6th& 7th Floor 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire BKC M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, BKC Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 PAN: AAACH2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner of Income –Tax – 7(1) v. M/s. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known as Hindustan Ciba G…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. U K PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…ion can be taxed under the head other sources u/s 56 of the Act? 8.5 In my opinion, the answer to both the issues framed by me, should be in negative, in favor of appellant. The reasoning for the same is:  Supreme Court in CIT versus Motor & General Stores 66 ITR 692 has explained to the effect that the real intention of the parties has to be gathered on the appreciation of a background in its entirety instead of focusing either on the nomenclature or concentrating on certain parts of it; In this connection, following words of Supreme Court in Ishikawa case 288 ITR Page 408 are apposite: 12 “In construing a c…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S U.K. PAINTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 4115/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

NALINI MAHAJAN,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3130/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 28Section 28(1)Section 55(2)

…aven (Inspector of Taxes) (supra) which further observed that genuine strategic tax planning has not been abandoned by any decision of the English Courts till date]"  The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Motors & General Stores (P.) Ltd.: 66 ITR 692 (SC) observed as under: It is not disputed that the document in question was intended to be acted upon and there is no suggestion of mala fides or that the document was never intended to have any legal effect. In the absence of any suggestion of bad faith or fraud the true principle is that the taxing statute has to be applied in accordance with t…

ACIT CIR -4(2) (1) , THANE vs. M/S. MUKTI GOLD PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the assessee’s C

ITA 1804/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…(SC) 8. Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd v/s CIT(1969) (73 ITR 634) (SC) 9. L.B. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd v/s CIT (19 CTR) 185: (1980) 125 ITR 293 (SC) 10. CIT V. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (S.C) 11. CIT V/S Motor & General Stores Pvt. Ltd. 66 ITR 692 (S.C In the appellant's case, all commission agents confirmed having rendered services to the appellant company and receipt of payment against their service and TDS were also deducted thereon. Page 8 of 22 CO. No. 116/Mum/2022 M/s Mukti Gold Pvt. Ltd. Interest paid: Every growing business needs funds, which are raised through various sources. In…

VODAFONE IDEA LTD (ERSTWHILE ADITYA BIRLA TELECOM LTD),MUMBAI vs. PCIT-CIRCLE 5, MUMBAI

ITA 662/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blevodafone Idea Limited V. Pcit – Circle 5 {Erstwhile Known As Aditya Birla Telecom Limited} Room No. 515, 5Thfloor Birla Centurion, 10Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. 794, B Wing Mumbai - 400020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg Worli, Mumbai – 400030 Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri J. D. Mistry : Shri Madhur Aggarwal & Shri Ninad Patade Department Represented By : Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 263

…dings Investments(Mauritius) Ltd. It is submitted that the distribution of shares on capital reduction cannot toconsidered as transactionof "sale of shares Attention in this regard is drawn to the Supreme Court ruling of Motors &General Stores (P) Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 692 (SC) wherein was held that It is clear, therefore, that both under the Sale of Goods Act and the Transfer of Property Act, sale is a transfer of property in the goods or of the ownership in immovable property for money consideration Therefore, in order for a transaction to be considered as a 'sale, there must be a sum of money which is paid by the…

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…the Transfer of Property Act defines „sale‟ as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price, „price‟ being defined in section 2(10) of the Sale of Goods Act as any consideration paid for sale of the goods. In CIT v. Motors & General Stores (P.)Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 692 , it was pointed out by the Supreme Court that the presence of money consideration is an essential element of a transaction of sale. Tested by this yardstick, it would appear that in an amalgamation, no consideration in any form much less in the form of money—flows from the transferee company to the transferor company, which was the erstwhile owne…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

ASHISH MANOJ BHATIA,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 338/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2015-16 Ashish Manoj Bhatia Dcit, Cir.4(2) 10, Kameshwardev Society Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Kishan Bungalows Bodakdev, Ahmedabad. Pan : Ahspb 1199 E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thawani

Section 10(38)Section 132(1)Section 250(6)

…nny stocks in a very recent Judgement in the case of Smt. M.K.Rajeshwari v/s. ITO, ITA No. 1723/Bang/2018 ( A.Y.2015-16) dated 12/10/201 8 on similar facts: The ratio laid down in following case laws is also being applied: Motor and General Stores Pvt. Ltd. -66 ITR 692 (SC): The name given to a transaction by the parties concerned does not necessarily decide the nature of -the transaction, the question always is what is the real character of the transaction and not what parties call it." Sundaram Finance Ltd. - 1966 AIR 1178 (SC): "Where terms of transaction are embodied in a document the true effect of trans…

SHRI RAMSANGBHAI BACHUBHAI SOLANKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 317/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2011-12 Shri Ramsangbhai Bachubhai Solanki, Income-Tax Officer, 299, Rajput Vas, Darbar Vas, Vs Ward 7(3), Rethal, Tal: Sanand, Ahmedabad Dist. Ahmedabad- 382210 Pan : Bwgps 3056 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…e but the essence and in substance the transaction is quite different. The true character of the issue involved, is required to be understood in holistic sense. The ratio laid down in following case laws is being applied: Motor and General Stores Pvt. Ltd. - 66 ITR 692 (SC): "The name given to a transaction by the parties concerned does not necessarily decide the nature of the transaction, the question always is what is the real character of the transaction and not what parties call it." Workmen vs. Associated Rubber Industries - 157 ITR 77 (SC): "It is duty of the Court in every case where ingenuity is express…

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4