Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

8 SCC 667Supreme Court of India1999#1613 most cited

What is Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh authority for?

The case distinguishes between legitimate tax planning and transactions that are colourable devices or shams, affirming that while legal arrangements to reduce tax are permissible, transactions lacking legitimacy and designed purely to evade tax are not.

70

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2004 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mathuram Agrawal · 8 SCC 667 · colourable device · sham transaction · tax planning vs evasion · legal arrangements · sections 35D · 40(a)(i) · 14A · 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 35DSection 40(a)(i)Section 80HHCSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 28(iiid)Section 35(2AB)Section 35

Issues it is cited on

section 35dcolourable devicewritten down valueblock of assetssection 2(47)short term capital gainsbusiness connectionsection 40(a)(i)section 35put to useenduring benefitshort term capital gain

Judgments citing Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Vinay Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 61/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…[1985] 154 ITR 148. In the said case of UOI Vs. AzadiBachaoAndolan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “In our judgment, from Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL) ; 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad’s case [1940] 8 ITR 522 (PC) to Mathuram’s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same. We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perc…

D.C.I.T., Circle- 1, Dibrugarh vs. Vishal Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 60/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…[1985] 154 ITR 148. In the said case of UOI Vs. AzadiBachaoAndolan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “In our judgment, from Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL) ; 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad’s case [1940] 8 ITR 522 (PC) to Mathuram’s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same. We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perc…

D.C.I.T., Circle- 1, Dibrugarh vs. Bhagwati Devii Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 59/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…[1985] 154 ITR 148. In the said case of UOI Vs. AzadiBachaoAndolan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “In our judgment, from Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL) ; 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad’s case [1940] 8 ITR 522 (PC) to Mathuram’s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same. We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perc…

D.C.I.T., Circle- 1, Dibrugarh vs. Meenakshi Bamalwa Soni, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 58/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…[1985] 154 ITR 148. In the said case of UOI Vs. AzadiBachaoAndolan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “In our judgment, from Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL) ; 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad’s case [1940] 8 ITR 522 (PC) to Mathuram’s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same. We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perc…

D.C.I.T., Circle- 1, Dibrugarh vs. Usha Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 57/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…[1985] 154 ITR 148. In the said case of UOI Vs. AzadiBachaoAndolan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “In our judgment, from Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL) ; 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad’s case [1940] 8 ITR 522 (PC) to Mathuram’s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same. We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perc…

D.C.I.T., Circle- 1, Dibrugarh vs. Hans Raj Bamalwa (HUF), Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 56/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…[1985] 154 ITR 148. In the said case of UOI Vs. AzadiBachaoAndolan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “In our judgment, from Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL) ; 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad’s case [1940] 8 ITR 522 (PC) to Mathuram’s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same. We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perc…

D.C.I.T., Circle- 1, Dibrugarh vs. Hans Raj Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 55/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…[1985] 154 ITR 148. In the said case of UOI Vs. AzadiBachaoAndolan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “In our judgment, from Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL) ; 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad’s case [1940] 8 ITR 522 (PC) to Mathuram’s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same. We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perc…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Bachh Raj Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 54/GTY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…[1985] 154 ITR 148. In the said case of UOI Vs. AzadiBachaoAndolan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “In our judgment, from Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL) ; 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad’s case [1940] 8 ITR 522 (PC) to Mathuram’s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same. We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perc…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Bachh Raj Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 53/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…[1985] 154 ITR 148. In the said case of UOI Vs. AzadiBachaoAndolan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “In our judgment, from Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL) ; 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad’s case [1940] 8 ITR 522 (PC) to Mathuram’s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same. We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perc…

DCIT, Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Bajrang Lal Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 52/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…[1985] 154 ITR 148. In the said case of UOI Vs. AzadiBachaoAndolan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “In our judgment, from Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL) ; 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad’s case [1940] 8 ITR 522 (PC) to Mathuram’s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same. We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perc…

DCIT, Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Bajrang Lal Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 51/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…[1985] 154 ITR 148. In the said case of UOI Vs. AzadiBachaoAndolan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “In our judgment, from Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL) ; 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad’s case [1940] 8 ITR 522 (PC) to Mathuram’s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same. We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perc…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Hes Infra Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 185/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

…pay tax; and the rate at which the tax is to be levied. If there is any ambiguity in understanding any of the components, no tax can be levied till the ambiguity or defect is removed by the legislature [See Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999) 8 SCC 667; Indian Banks’ Association vs. Devkala Consultancy Service, (2004) 4 JT 587 = AIR 2004 SC 2615; and Consumer Online Foundation vs. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 360.]” 16. From the reading of the above, it is clear that in case a person seeking the deduction under the provisions of the Act, then onus is on the assessee to prove strictly that assess…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Hes Infra Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 184/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

…pay tax; and the rate at which the tax is to be levied. If there is any ambiguity in understanding any of the components, no tax can be levied till the ambiguity or defect is removed by the legislature [See Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999) 8 SCC 667; Indian Banks’ Association vs. Devkala Consultancy Service, (2004) 4 JT 587 = AIR 2004 SC 2615; and Consumer Online Foundation vs. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 360.]” 16. From the reading of the above, it is clear that in case a person seeking the deduction under the provisions of the Act, then onus is on the assessee to prove strictly that assess…

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

Section 2(24)Section 35DSection 37(2)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT (LTU-1) v. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 PAN: AAACB3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/MUM/2002 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.5030/MUM/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited v. ACIT (LTU-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400…

Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt.Ltd.(Now Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd) vs. Commissioner of Customs (I) Nhava Sheva

The appeals are disposed of along with any pending applications

C.A. No.-005373 - 2019Supreme Court17 Jan 2023

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 4Section 4A

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO 5373 OF 2019 Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Now HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd.) … Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva … Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO 6715 OF 2019 Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva … Respondent JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J. 1. The question that arises for our consideration pertains to correct classification of Auto…

K.L. Swamy vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-003704-003704 - 2012Supreme Court13 Jan 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 113Section 132Section 140ASection 158BSection 234A

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3704 OF 2012 K.L. Swamy ...Appellant(s) Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. …Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3706 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3705 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3707 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3708 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3709 OF 2012 J U D G M E N T : 1 : Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.01.13 16:29:07 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals, all these appeals are decided and dispos…

M/S Chandrakant H. Kakkad, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/RJT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2006-07 Chandrakant H. Kakkad, The ITO, 7-Vishalinagar, Ward-4(2), Nr. Jivanhar Society, Vs Rajkot B/H Mahila College, (Respondent) Rajkot PAN: ACYPK4009K (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Deepak Rindani, A.R. Revenue by: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 08-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 21-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 200-07 against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Rajkot dated 27-02-…

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…ncerned, the Court considered its decisions -in the matters of Me bowell A Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 48/22 Taxman 11 (SC), Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2004] 10 SCC1 and the Mathuram Agarwai v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999] 8 SCC 667 and concluded that were the transaction is not genuine but a colourable device there could be no question of tax planning. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case after considering the aforesaid two decisions concluded as follows: "The majority judgment in Mcboweil held that tax planning' may be legitimate Provided it is within ilieframeit ‘ark of…

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

…concerned, the Court considered its decisions in the matters of Mc Dowell& Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 48/22 Taxman 11 (SC), Union of India v. AzadiBachaoAndolan [2004] 10 SCC 1 and the Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999] 8 SCC 667 and concluded that where the transaction is not genuine but a colourable device there could be no question of tax planning. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case after considering the aforesaid two decisions concluded as follows: "The majority judgment in McDowell held that “tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of l…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…[1985] 154 ITR 148, In the said case of UOI Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed asunder: “In our judgment, from Westminster's case [1936] AC 1? (HL); 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad"s case [1940] 8 [TR 522 (PC) to Mathura‟s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell's case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same. We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which Is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non-est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perc…