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 609Supreme Court of India1967#1938 most cited

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

The Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to enhance an assessment under section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provided the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sree Meenakshi Mills · section 251(2) · Commissioner Appeals · power to enhance assessment · natural justice · opportunity of hearing

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 246A Section 250 Section 253

Issues it is cited on

section 31 paper company section 251(2)share capital and share premium source of source creditworthiness of the creditor section 251(1)(a)live link admission of additional evidence set off of losses retraction of statement entry operator

Judgments citing CIT v. Sree Meenakshi Mills Rs. 73.5

Income Tax Officer-11(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4929/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Satyanathan Raju (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…e. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the ratio of decision of following case laws , as detailed hereunder:- (1) CIT v. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 . (2) Sumati Dayal v.CIT 214 ITR 801 (3) Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC). (4) Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., 63 ITR 609 (SC) (5) McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148 (SC) (6) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (7) Chuharmal vs. CIT (1998) 172 ITR 250/ 38 Taxman 190 (8) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (9) Nikunj Eximp In ITA no. 5604 of 2010 (Bombay High Court); (10) Balaji Textiles 49 ITD 177 (Bom) (11) Rajeev G. Kalathil in ITA no. 6727/M…

ACIT Cir 6(3)2, Mumbai vs. Khyati Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2356/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Dcit Cir 6(3)2 Vs. M/S. Khyati Realtors P.Ltd. 19Th Floor, R.No.522 301/68, Manek Bhavan 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 1St Hindu Colony M.K. Road, Dadar (E) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 014 Pan/Gir No.Aaccm6461E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…d to sell the shares in Alfa at a hefty price and to enable Alfa Infrprop P Ltd to claim depreciation on its intangibles in later years , thereby proving the colorable device. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd reported in 63 ITR 609 (SC) had held that at times it would be necessary to lift the corporate veil and pierce through the transaction to understand the underlying intention of the parties to the arrangement entered into. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard are as under:- “It is well-established that in a matter of this description the inco…

Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-23(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4604/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4604/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Ward-23(2), Part-2, New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aamcs0742A Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150(1)Section 68

…) 330 ITR 1 " Shri Hersh W. Chadha, (Legal heir of Late Sh. W.N. Chadha) Vs. DDIT, Circle-1(1), ITA No. I.T.A. Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Dei/2005 " CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 2 ITR-OL 68 (Delhi); (2014 206 DLT 97 (DB) " Meenakshi Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 609 " Littlewoods Mail Order Stores [1970] 75 ITR 327 (CA) " Juggilalkamlapat [1969] 73 ITR 702, 710 (SC) " W.T. Ramsay Ltd. Vs. IRC [1981] 2 WLR 449 " McDowell and Co. Ltd. Vs. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 " Workmen Vs. Associated Rubber Industry [1986] 157 ITR 77 5 Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd. 4. The authorities specifically relied on the judgment of t…

Income Tax Officer-19(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Umeshbhai R. Patel, Prop: M/S.Uma Gems, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4864/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) V. Shri Umeshbhai R. Patel Room No. 201 Prop: M/S. Uma Gems Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 117/A, Pancharatna, Mumbai – 400 007 Opera House Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Acfpp 2969 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Rajeev K. Gubgotra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev K. Gubgotra

Section 132(4)Section 147

…were entitled to look in to the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. 6 Shri Umeshbhai R. Patel 7.6 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 IT. 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. Next, there is serious disturbance cause…

Secl Industries Limited, Bathinda vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 798/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Mona Mohanti, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "याय"क सद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.798/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 SECL Industries Limited, The D.C.I.T., बनाम # 21605, Street No.6/1A, Central Circle-III, Power House Road, Ludhiana. Bathinda. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AALCS6651H "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt.Mona Mohanti, CIT DR सुनवाई…

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Chhaya Gems, Mumbai

ITA 2552/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…s produced before them. They were entitled to look in to the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recital made in those documents. 7.6 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 tax avoidance are manifold. First, there is substantial loss of much needed public revenue. Next, there is serious disturbance caus…

Muthoot Healthcare P. Ltd, Kozhencherry vs. The ACIT, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 413/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 170Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

…12. It is a settled position that the Court has power to disregard the corporate entity if it is used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation. (See: Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. v. Lewellin [1957] 1 WLR 464). In CIT v. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 609, the Supreme Court said that the income-tax authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and to look at the reality of the transaction. It further said : "... It is true that from the juristic point of view the company is a legal personality entirety distinct from its members and the company is capable of enjoining rights and b…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Skyway Constructon Co., Mumbai

ITA 5865/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 145(3)

…g with the concept of burden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim and in this case the appellant and not on the Revenue. 6.7 Reliance 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. Next, there is serious disturbance caus…

M/S Sigma Cartrons Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 662/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SharmaFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Sinha

…t used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation or to perpetrate fraud as held in Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT, (1969) 73 ITR 702 (SC); Union of India v. Playworld Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (1'990) 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 assessee has booked fictitious/bogus pu…

Achla Dhawan vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2165/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…Achla Dhawan, Meerut. 12 ( Durga Prasad More; 82 ITR 540 (SC); ( i Mcdowcll & Co., 165 IT R 227 (SC); i ) ( A. Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC); > i ( Play World Electronics Pvt. Ltd.; 184 ITR 308 ) i i ( S.B.I, 157 ITR 67 (SC); i v v ( Shri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., 63 ITR 609 (SC). ) ) ) v i ) All these pithy judgements underline the importance of dictum that it is the substance, and not form, of a transaction, which is important. In this case, the impugned gift has been part of a gift scandal; in the „substance‟, that cannot be ignored. So, even if gift has been given/taken in seemingly acceptable „form‟; it loses its…

Kaviraj Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1327/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…d 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. 2.5.6 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 13. 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. Next, there is serious disturbance cause…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d. vs. ACIT 135 ITD 270 (Ind) xxxviii. Nipun Builders & Developers P. Ltd. 350 ITR 407 (Del) xxxix. CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports P. Ltd. 40 taxmann.com 458 (Del) xl. ACIT vs. Dhanalaxmi Steel Re-rolling Mills 57 ITD 361 (Hyd) xli. CIT vs. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 (SC) 10 M/s. Jasamrit Constructions P. Ltd. The learned A.R. in the rebuttal distinguished the various decision decisions relied upon by the AO in the assessment order and also the CIT(A). 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the impugned order and various decisions cited by rival parties. The undisputed…

ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Naitik Gems, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6718/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhito -19(2)(4), M/S Naitik Gems Room No. 217, Matru Mandir, 1304, Prasad Chambers, Vs. Mumbai-400007. Opera House, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Aaafn5200F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Justin (Sr. DR)For Respondent: Shri Ashok J. Patil (AR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…produced before them. They were entitled to look in to the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. 8.6 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 tax avoidance are manifold. First, there is substantial loss of much needed public revenue. Next, there is serious disturbance caus…

Samkit Diamonds Exporters, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee as well of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4133/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4133/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Samkit Diamonds Exporters Acit 19(3) 111 Prasad Chambers, Tata Mumbai Road No.2, Opera House, V. Mumbai 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aakfs5302F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay K ParikhFor Respondent: Shri. V. Vidyadhar,Sr DR

Section 143(3)

…s produced before them. They were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. 6.6 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 tax avoidance are manifold. First, there is substantial loss of much needed public revenue. Next, there is serious disturbance caus…

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Lekhraj H Doshi, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4502/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…tock registers. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) considered the factual matrix, relied upon the decision like Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540(SC), Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801, Jamuna Prasad Kanhaiya Lal vs CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC), Minakshi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 (SC), McDowells & Co. 154 ITR 148 (SC), Daulat Ram Rawatmal. 87 ITR 349, Chuhar Mal vs CIT 172 ITR 205 (SC), Nikunj Eximps, ITA No.5604 of 2010 (Bom.), Killick Nixon ltd. vs DCIT (2012) 20 taxman.com 703 (Bom.), Shri Ganesh Rice Mills vs CIT (2007) 294 ITR 316 (All.), Khandelwal Trading Company vs ACIT 55 TTJ 261(JP) and various other judicial pro…

Kantadevi Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2829/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpg6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Ahrpg7451P

Section 143(3)

…oborative and, further, if the modus operandi adopted, as explained therein, corroborates the facts and incidents of the case. The law in the matter is well settled, and toward which some binding decisions may be cited: CIT vs. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 609 (SC) Juggilal Kamlapat vs. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 702 (SC) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) Workmen, Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. vs. ARI Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 77 (SC) CIT v. Akshay Textile Trading & Agencies (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 401 (confirming that there was n…

Santlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2)

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2802/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)

Manish C Jogani HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7344/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7344/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Manish C. Jogani, Huf Ito-16(2)(2), बनाम/ C/21, Shree Ganeshprasad Chs Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Sleater Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafhm 8076 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7345/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Sandeep C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aalhs 2461 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7346/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Girish C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhg 0062 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7347/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Champaklal D. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahj 8938 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : (A.Y. 2008-09) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jayesh Dadia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Bharati Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2015 Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2015 Date Of Order आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Four Appeals By Different Assessees, Agitating The Dismissal Of Their Appeals Contesting Their Respective Assessments U/S. 143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 07.2.2014 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Vide His Separate Orders Of Even Date (20.10.2014). The Issue/S Arising Being Common, The Appeals Were Posted For Hearing & Were Accordingly, Heard Together.

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Smt. Bharati Singh

Section 143(3)

DCIT - 20(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.B. Engg. Works, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 616/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-20(1) J.B. Eng. Works Room No.603, 6Th Flr, 797, Jesia Bldg. Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Jamshed Road, Parsi Vs. Mumbai-400012 Colony, Dadar (E) Mumbai -400014 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafj5106C Revenue By Shri S. S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Mr. Percy Pardiwalla,Sr. Advocate & Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

Section 143(3)

…the Trust merely to reduce the tax liability by converting the maximum gain as Long Term Capital Gains. The Assessing Officer also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mcdowell & Co. Ltd 154 ITR 148, CIT vs Meenakshi Mills Ltd 63 ITR 609, Workman of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd vs Associated Rubber Industry Ltd 157 ITR 77 and CIT vs Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and on the decision of the Mumbai bench of ITAT in the case of Bombay Oil Industries 16 J.B. Eng. Works Ltd vs DCIT 82 ITD 626, to support his view that the transaction was a colorable device. In light of the above, the…