CWT v. Arvind Narottamdas

184 ITR 308Supreme Court of India1990#5797 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Issues it is cited on

genuineness of the transactioncompanysection 14indiabusinessdocument

Judgments citing CWT v. Arvind Narottamdas

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

…egal facade. The court has power to disregard the corporate entity 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. Slatfor…

ITO3(1), INDORE vs. K. K. PATEL FINANCE LTD. , MORENA

ITA 988/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-3(1) K.K. Patel Finance Ltd. Indore 44, Jiwaji Ganj, बनाम/ Gandhi Aushdhalaya Road, Vs. Morena (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabck 4282 G Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 / 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

Section 143(3)Section 68

…on of Mc Dowel & Co. doctrine. Such transactions have no financial or economic propriety either. In the result, the Apex Court judgments in the cases of CWT v Arvind Narottamdas (1988) 173 ITR 479 (SC) and Union of India v Playworld Electronics Pvt Ltd (1990) 184 ITR 308 (SC) do not help Page 7 of 19 K.K. Patel Finance Ltd. Assessment year 2009-10 the assessee's case as it has no propriety except tax-evasion. Further, all the three companies have not given the schedules of Balance Sheets, therefore it is not clear whether these amounts are appearing in their balance sheet as share application in assets side. A…

J.C.I.D.(OSD),CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA vs. SRI ADITYA KUMAR SINGHANIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 268/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…985] 154 ITR 148 as the AO mentioned in his/her Asstt. Ord. 3) The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as facts by not considering the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Playworld Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. (1990) 184 ITR 308 as the AO mentioned in his/her Asstt. Ord. 4) The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as facts by not considering the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. vs. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 77 as the AO mentioned in his/her Asstt. Ord. 5) The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as we…

SHRI RAMASWAMY SHIVARAMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC - 1 (1),, CHENNAI

ITA 571/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.571/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ीवी. दुगा" राव,"ाियकसद"एवं "ीजी. मंजूनाथा, , लेखासद"केसम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.571/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 v. Mr.Ramaswamy Shivaraman, The Asst. Commissioner of 144/15, Kailash Colony, Income Tax, Anna Nagar West, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 101. Chennai. [PAN: BZOPS 3579 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CA : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by Mr.AR.V…

GARGI GANGULY ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE - 1(1), , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2147/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A Nos.2146&2147/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Gargi Ganguly Vs. Dcit(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. C/P Guha & Matilal Gillander House, Mezzanine Floor, Block-E, 8, N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alspg8198C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri I. Banerjee, Ca Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) - 22, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2017 In Case No.15/Cit(A)-22/Kol/10-11/15-16 & 14/Cit(A)-22/Kol/11-12/15-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’); Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Persued. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Substantive Ground Raised In Both The Instant Appeals Challenges The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating The Sums In Issue Of Rs.60,34,310/- & Rs.44,61,160/-(Assessment Year Wise Respectively) As Income

For Appellant: Shri I. Banerjee, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 127Section 131Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A Nos.2146&2147/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Gargi Ganguly Vs. DCIT(IT), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. C/p Guha & Matilal Gillander House, Mezzanine Floor, Block-E, 8, N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ALSPG8198C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri I. Banerjee, CA Respondent by : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S.…

GARGI GANGULY ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE - 1(1), , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2146/KOL/2018[ 2010-11 ]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A Nos.2146&2147/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Gargi Ganguly Vs. Dcit(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. C/P Guha & Matilal Gillander House, Mezzanine Floor, Block-E, 8, N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alspg8198C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri I. Banerjee, Ca Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) - 22, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2017 In Case No.15/Cit(A)-22/Kol/10-11/15-16 & 14/Cit(A)-22/Kol/11-12/15-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’); Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Persued. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Substantive Ground Raised In Both The Instant Appeals Challenges The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating The Sums In Issue Of Rs.60,34,310/- & Rs.44,61,160/-(Assessment Year Wise Respectively) As Income

For Appellant: Shri I. Banerjee, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 127Section 131Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A Nos.2146&2147/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Gargi Ganguly Vs. DCIT(IT), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. C/p Guha & Matilal Gillander House, Mezzanine Floor, Block-E, 8, N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ALSPG8198C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri I. Banerjee, CA Respondent by : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S.…

SHRI RAMACHANDRAN ANANTHAN POTHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(3), MUMBAI

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1088/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…bove mentioned observations, I find the reliance of the AO on the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court is in order: (i) McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1985] 154ITR148/22 Taxman 11. (ii) Union of India &Ors. Vs. Playworld Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. (1990)184 ITR 308 (SC), (iii) Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. v. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 77 (SC), (iv) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 4.1.7 Apart from that in Mid East Port Folio Management Ltd. Vs. CIT (2003) 81 TTJ (Mum)(SB)37, it was held that McDowell is more of an approach to the facts of a particular case than…

MS.KANTABEN BHOGILAL KUBADIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-21(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1937/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ms. Kantaben Bhogilal Vs Ito-21(2)(1), Mumbai Kubadia, 801, Sun Shine Heights, 243, P.L. Kale Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-22 Pan : Aadpk8166G Appellant Respondednt

Section 10(38)Section 68

…1 ITA 1937/Mum/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI Before Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND Shri Ravish Sood (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Ms. Kantaben Bhogilal vs ITO-21(2)(1), MumbaI Kubadia, 801, Sun Shine Heights, 243, P.L. Kale Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-22 PAN : AADPK8166G APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Neil Khandelwal / Nagin Parekh Respondent by Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date of hearing 10-06-2019 Date of pronouncement 10-07-2019 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)- 33, Mumbai dated 12-03-2018 and…

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

…cade. The court has power to disregard the corporate entity if it 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. (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. Slatfor…

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

ITA 252/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) is concerned, it still holds the field and hits tax planning's and devices with the clear intent of evasion of tax. In CWT v Arvind Narottamdas(1988) 173 ITR 479 (SC) and Union of India v Play world Electronics P.Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 308(SC), the Apex Court carved out an exception from the McDowell rule holding that if the impugned transactions were bonafide and having a clear financial or economic objective, the McDowell rule shall not hit even if tax saving is incidental to such transactions. In the present appellant's case, bonafides of transaction has not been established. On…

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

ITA 53/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) is concerned, it still holds the field and hits tax planning's and devices with the clear intent of evasion of tax. In CWT v Arvind Narottamdas(1988) 173 ITR 479 (SC) and Union of India v Play world Electronics P.Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 308(SC), the Apex Court carved out an exception from the McDowell rule holding that if the impugned transactions were bonafide and having a clear financial or economic objective, the McDowell rule shall not hit even if tax saving is incidental to such transactions. In the present appellant's case, bonafides of transaction has not been established. On…

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

ITA 315/IND/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) is concerned, it still holds the field and hits tax planning's and devices with the clear intent of evasion of tax. In CWT v Arvind Narottamdas(1988) 173 ITR 479 (SC) and Union of India v Play world Electronics P.Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 308(SC), the Apex Court carved out an exception from the McDowell rule holding that if the impugned transactions were bonafide and having a clear financial or economic objective, the McDowell rule shall not hit even if tax saving is incidental to such transactions. In the present appellant's case, bonafides of transaction has not been established. On…

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

…ade. The court has power to disregard the corporate entity if it 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. Slatfor…

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

…ed on umpteen number of judgements, inter alia - ITA. 2165 (Del) of 2008. Smt. 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,…

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)

…the Learned Chief Justice M.N. Chandurkar, held that a real and genuine transaction which is not a dubious device for avoiding the tax is not hit even by the doctrine of McDowell & Co. Ltd. (supra). In Union of India v. Play world Electronics (P.) Ltd. [1990] 184 ITR 308 the Supreme Court has held that tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the frame work of the law. In the present case it can hardly be suggested that the assessee cannot take advantage of the provisions of the Income-tax Act to claim set off of the capital loss against the capital gain. The department would have to go to the extent…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 6062/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 10

…the framework of law. Colourable devices cannot be a part of tax planning and it is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly. In the case of Mc. Dowell & Co. Limited Vs. CIT 154 ITR 148 (SC) and Union of India Vs. Plywood Electronics ( 1990) 184 ITR 308 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when two interpretations are possible, one leading to avoidance or evasion of tax should be avoided and that which prevents such avoidance or evasion should be adopted. In the case of the assessee, the interpretation by the assessee leads to avoidance of tax on facts and on merits it leads to incorrect in…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 6063/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 10

…the framework of law. Colourable devices cannot be a part of tax planning and it is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly. In the case of Mc. Dowell & Co. Limited Vs. CIT 154 ITR 148 (SC) and Union of India Vs. Plywood Electronics ( 1990) 184 ITR 308 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when two interpretations are possible, one leading to avoidance or evasion of tax should be avoided and that which prevents such avoidance or evasion should be adopted. In the case of the assessee, the interpretation by the assessee leads to avoidance of tax on facts and on merits it leads to incorrect in…

NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 3704/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 2 Of 50 National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 271Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…oans originally is not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act, then there is no question of allowability of deduction in case of NHB. In the case of Me Dowell & Co. Ltd Vs. CTO 154 ITR 148 (SC) and Union of India Vs. Plywood Electronics ( 1990 ) 184 ITR 308 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when two interpretations are possible, one leading to avoidance or evasion of tax should be avoided and that which prevents such avoidance or evasion should be adopted. In the case of the assessee, the interpretation by the assessoe leads to avoidance of tax on facts and on merits it leads to incorrect in…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VACHANBAND INVESTMENT LTD.

The Appeal is allowed to the

ITA - 84 / 2010HC Delhi26 Sept 2012

Bench: The Court, Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Itat Dated 13.03.2009 In Ita-2280/Del/2005. It Urges The Following Substantial Question Of Law For Determination By This Court; “Did The Tribunal Err In Law In Finding That The Loss Declared By The Assessee From The Sale Of Shares Of M/S J.P. Industries & Himachal Futuristic Company Ltd., Could Be Treated As Speculation Loss Enabling It To Set Off Speculation Loss Against The Profit Available.”

Section 131

…ns i.e. at the time of purchase as well as at the time of sale, it was only the sister concern M/s A. Nitin Capital Services which was involved in the transaction. 10. In the judgment reported as Union of India v. Play world Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 308, it was held as follows: - “….It is true that tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honourable to avoid the payment of tax by dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay th…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VACHANBAND INVESTMENT LTD

The Appeal is allowed to the

ITA/84/2010HC Delhi26 Sept 2012

Bench: The Court, Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Itat Dated 13.03.2009 In Ita-2280/Del/2005. It Urges The Following Substantial Question Of Law For Determination By This Court; “Did The Tribunal Err In Law In Finding That The Loss Declared By The Assessee From The Sale Of Shares Of M/S J.P. Industries & Himachal Futuristic Company Ltd., Could Be Treated As Speculation Loss Enabling It To Set Off Speculation Loss Against The Profit Available.”

Section 131

…ns i.e. at the time of purchase as well as at the time of sale, it was only the sister concern M/s A. Nitin Capital Services which was involved in the transaction. 10. In the judgment reported as Union of India v. Play world Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 308, it was held as follows: - “….It is true that tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honourable to avoid the payment of tax by dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay th…