What is CIT v. Sree Meenakshi Mills Rs. 73.5 authority for?

The tax authorities can look beyond the legal form of a transaction and disregard the corporate entity if it is used for tax evasion or to create a smoke screen. The assessee bears the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions, and the true nature of a transaction is determined based on surrounding circumstances and human probabilities, not requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Sree Meenakshi Mills Rs. 73.5?

59 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sree Meenakshi Mills Rs. 73.5 (63 ITR 609), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sree Meenakshi Mills Rs. 73.5 come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 246A.

CIT v. Sree Meenakshi Mills Rs. 73.5 (63 ITR 609)

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

ITA 872/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

…tity if it used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation or to perpetrate s held in Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT, (1969) 73 ITR 702 (SC); Union of India v. Playworld Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 308, 317 (SC): CIT v. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., (1967)63 ITR 609, 616 (SC) etc. Further the legislature can forge a sledge- hammer capable of cracking open the corporate shell, and it can, if it chooses, demand that the courts ignore all the conceptions and principles which are at the root of company law [Bank Voor Handel enScheepvart N.V. v. Slatford, (1953) 1QB 248). The facts and circumstances of the case, a…

M/S TOPLINK COMMERCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA

ITA 1413/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

…erce Ltd. AY: 2012-13 ii. Merely because the share application with huge and unjustified share premium was received from corporate entities from banking channel, no enquiry was warranted is not a sustainable plea (relied by the ITAT – 82 ITR 540, 214 ITR 801, 63 ITR 609). iii. it is incumbent on the assessee to prove and establish the identity of the subscribers, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. Once materials to prove these ingredients are produced, it is for the Assessing Officer to find out as to whether on these materials the assessee was able to establish the ingredients mention…

M S HOSTEL,NEW SAMA SAVLI ROAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), VADODARA, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 614/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…g upon the judgment passed in the matter of McDowell and Co. Ltd., reported in [1985] 154 ITR 148, Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. vs. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd., reported in [1986] 157 ITR 7 (SC), CIT vs. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., reported in 63 ITR 609 (SC), CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, reported in 82 ITR 540 (SC) & Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT, reported in [2000] 82 ITD 626 etc. The amount debited by the appellant found to be bogus salary expenses in the P&L account and the same has been disallowed under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, which was further confirmed by the First Appellate Autho…

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 959/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Mahavir Prasadassessment Year : 2011-12 Ananya Finance For Inclusive The Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Growth P Ltd. Ambawadi 401, Shaan, Op: M.J. Library Ahmedabad 380015. Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aahca 8023 D

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)

…ITR 148 (SC) wherein it was categorically held that colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning and avoidance of tax payment by resorting to dubious methods should not be encouraged. The Hon’ble apex court in the case of CIT vs Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609(SC) and in the case of Juggilal Kamlapat vs CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC) approved looking behind the apparent transaction to the arrangement or scheme involved therein for the purposes of taxation. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a recent decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del) held the separate payment of pur…

SARVESH MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC -2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 7163/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR

Section 68

…an probability and circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 and McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148. & Co. 154 ITR 148. Before us, in the written submission filed, the us, in the written submission filed, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also Ld. Counsel of the assessee…

SARVESH MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CC 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 7162/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR

Section 68

…an probability and circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 and McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148. & Co. 154 ITR 148. Before us, in the written submission filed, the us, in the written submission filed, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also Ld. Counsel of the assessee…

SARVESH MERCANTILE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 4634/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR

Section 68

…an probability and circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 and McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148. & Co. 154 ITR 148. Before us, in the written submission filed, the us, in the written submission filed, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also Ld. Counsel of the assessee…

DCIT 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S B. CHOPDA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

…confirm the rejection of explanation of cash credit, in the instant case the appellant has failed to even corroborate the claim before the Ld. A.O. 6.2.6 Reliance is also placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd 63 ITR 609 where it was held that the I.T. Authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of Corporate Entity and to look into reality of transaction. In the case of McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148(SC) it was stated that implications of 6 A.Y.2012-13 tax avoidance are manifold. First, there is substantial loss of much needed public revenue. Next, there is serious di…

THE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,JANJGIR CHAMPA, JANJGIR CHAMPA vs. M/S M/S AGRATA RETAIL PVT LTD, JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.)

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed, with no order as to cost

ITA 268/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battull

For Appellant: Shri R. B. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Singh

Section 143(2)Section 144(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…nts of law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not distinguishing the ratio of the case laws such as CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [82 ITR 540(SC)], Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [214 ITR 801 (SC)] and CIT vs. Shri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. [63 ITR 609 (SC) as relied upon by the AO in the assessment order.” “6. Whether on points of law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred by giving a finding which is contrary to the ratio of the decisions of ITAT Kolkata ‘B’ Bench in the case of M/s Subhlakshmi Vanijya (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT-1, Kolkata in ITA No. 1104/Kol/2014 and other cases dated 30/07/2015” “7. Whether on poi…

ASST CIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. BABUBHAI V PATEL, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 7470/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India In Various Other Appeals. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Was Correct In Narrowing Down The Scope Of Assessment U/S. 153A In Respect Of Completed Assessments By Holding That Only Undisclosed Income & Undisclosed Assets Detected During The Search Could Be Brought To Tax. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Was Correct In Holding That The Scope Of Section 153A Is Limited To Assessing Only Search Related Income, Thereby Denying Revenue, The 2 Shri Babubhai V. Patel

Section 131(1)(d)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…e or entertain the belief that if its honourable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges." 3.12 In the case of CIT v Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd 63 ITR 609, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "For example, the court has power to disregard the corporate entity if it is used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation." 3.13 In the case of CIT v Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540, the Supreme Court has held that "Taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents…

DCIT - 11(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SAMANTA ORGANICS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3229/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 To 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 80G

…confirm the rejection of explanation of cash credit, in the instant case the appellant has failed to even corroborate the claim before the Ld. A.O. 5.2.5 Reliance is also placed on the judgement of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd 63 ITR 609 where it was held that the I.T. Authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of Corporate Entity and to look into reality of transaction. In the case of McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148(SC) it was stated that implications of tax avoidance are manifold. First, there is substantial loss of much needed public revenue. ITA. Nos.3229 to 3231/M/2019 A.Ys. 200…