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

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the Supreme Court in Vodafone International (dated 20 January 2012) is concerned/ the Court considered its decisions in the matters of McDowell reported in (1985) 3 SCC 230, Azadi Bachao reported in (2004) 10 SCC 1 and the Mathuram Agarwal reported in (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 la…

Sri. Ravi Shankar Shetty, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 28/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai , Jm Ita No.28 /Bang/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ravi Shankar Shetty, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of #289, 1St Floor, 15Th Main, Rmv Income-Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Extension, Bengaluru Bengaluru-560 080. [Pan:Asups 9568B]

Section 234ASection 56(2)(ix)

….Tarulata Sharadas Vs CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345(SC) 2. CIT Vs Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC) 3. Indian Bank Associations and Ors. Vs Devkala Consultancy Services and Ors (2CC1) 267 ITR 179 (SC) 4. Nathuram Agarwal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 (SC) 5. Tata Consultancy Services Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 271 ITR 401(sc) According to the Ld. AR, the above principle is even more applicable in this case as the addition was made in the case of assessee by invoking the deeming provision to tax a receipt as an income, where the wordings of the provisions being invoked have to be constr…

Sri. M N Sheshagiri, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3), Mysore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2203/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 234BSection 251(1)Section 54

…account in terms of section 54F(4) of the Act before the due date as provided u/s 139(1) of the Act. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 7 Sri.M.N.Sheshagiri. in the case of Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667, wherein it was held as under:- “The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. It is…

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

…ITA No. 4929/Mum/2017 आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “G” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4929/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ ITO- 11(3)(4), M/s. Western Imaginary Room no 429, Aayakar Transcon Private Ltd., Bhavan, 4th Floor, 101, Shreeji Darshan, v. M.K. Marg, Dixit Cross Road No. 1, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAACW8917H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri. Satyanathan Raju (S…

Sowraj Investments Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle-6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3175/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Mr.M.Viswanathan,C.A +For Respondent: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…following judgements. DCIT Vs. BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 63(Kar) C.I.T Vs. Chand Ratan Bagri (2010) 230 CTR 258(Delhi) CWT Vs. Arvind Narotam 173 ITR 479(SC) Azad Bachao Andaolan 263 ITR 706(SC) Vodafone International Holdings Vs. UOI (1999) 8 SCC 667 which water downs the McDowell case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant namely, M/s.Sowraj Investments Pvt Ltd., is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Company Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of investment and finance. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 28.09.2013 declarin…

The Dy. DIT (Exemption), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Friends of Wwb India, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assesseee both are dismissed

ITA 1608/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…e the true effect on the construction of the deeds is clear, as in this case, the appeal to discourage tax avoidance is not a relevant consideration. But since it was made, it has to be noted and rejected." In Mathuram Agrawal v. State ofMadhya Pradesh [1999] 8 SCC 667 at para. 12 another Constitution Bench had occasion to consider the issue. The Bench observed (page 673) : "The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing pur…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…985] 154 ITR 148. In the said case of UOI Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan, 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…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…985] 154 ITR 148. In the said case of UOI Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan, 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…

Commnr. of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. M/S. Dilip Kumar and Company

C.A. No.-003327-003327 - 2007Supreme Court30 Jul 2018

Bench: A Bench Of Two­Judges. The Matter Then Went Before A Three­Judge Bench Consisting One Of Us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.). The Three­ Judge Bench Having Noticed The Unsatisfactory State Of Law As It Stands Today, Opined That The Dicta In Sun Export Case (Supra), Requires Reconsideration & That Is How The Matter Has Been Placed Before This Constitution Bench. 2

…IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3327 OF 2007 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T N . V . R A M A N A , J . 1. This Constitution Bench is setup to examine the correctness of the ratio in Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (1997) 6 SCC 564 [hereinafter referred as ‘Sun Export Case’ for brevity], namely the question is ­ What is the interpretative rule to be applied while interpreting…

ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Babulal U Munot, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4506/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Ito-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19Th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpm5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 7.5% Of Non-Genuine Purchase Claimed By The Assessee A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…ncerned, the Court considered its decisions in the matters of Me Dowel! & Co. Ltd. v Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 48/22 Taxman 11 (SC), Union of india v. Azadi Bacrtao Andolan [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 fax 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 law"…

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)

…ncerned, the Court considered its decisions in the matters of Mc Dowel) & Co. Ltd v. Commercial Tax Officer [19 351 154 /TP 48/22 Taxman 11 (SC), Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2004] 10 SCC I and the Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999] 8 SCC 667 and concluded that where the transaction is not genuine but a co/curable 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 fa"…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…e share premium determined by revenue and the share premium charged as deemed loan and taxing of national interest on deemed loan. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has referred to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Mathuram Aggarwal V/s State of MP (1999) 8 SCC 667 for the test to interpret a taxing statue which reads as under: “ The intention of the legislature is a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stat…

Mr.Aslam Zackria Sait, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 453/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G. S, CA and Shri. Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 54

…e entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statute be interprete on any presumption or assumptions……It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed…” Recently, the Supreme Court in Mathuram Agrawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999] 8 SCC 667 has observed as under:- “The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. It is not the…

Ravi Kant HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4174/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant Huf, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabhr0354M

Section 139(1)Section 260ASection 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)Section 54F

…rely out of place. Nor can taxing statute be interpreted on any presumption or assumptions.... It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed ..." Recently, the Supreme Court in Mathuram Agrawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999] 8 SCC 667 has observed as under:- "The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. It is not the e…

Basaribanu Mohd Rafiq Latiwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5420/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “H” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), v. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : ABGPL0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Deepak Tralshawala, AR Revenue by : Shri B.S. Bist, DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hear…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Bhuta Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1291/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ase is not universally applicable, as has been held in the following cases Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706(SC) CWT Vs Arvind Narottarn 173 ITR 479 (SC). Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT 222 ITR 831 (Guj). Mathuram Agarwal Vs. State of Madhya pradesh 8 SCC 667. We also found that the documents filed by the assessee along with case laws were forwarded by CIT(A) for remand report to the AO vide letter dated 16-12-2013 and vide letter dated 31-12-2013, the AO sent his remand report. Copy of which was given by CIT(A) to the assessee and after calling for assessee's reply on the remand report, the CIT(A) dele…

I.T.O WD - 8(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Ruia Sons Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 365/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 301Section 40

…ence therein to having dissented from or overruled the decision of the Privy Council in the Bank of Chettinands case 8 ITR 522 (PC). In any the principles appears to have been reiterated with approval by the Constitution Bench of this court in Mathuram's case 8 SCC 667 para 6 7 M/s.Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 12. We are, therefore unable to accept the contention of the respondent that there has been fl very drastic change in the final jurisprudence in India, as would entail a departure. In our judgment from Westminister's case to Bank of Chettinands case to Mathurams case despite the hiccups of Maclrowell's…

I.T.O WD - 7(3), Kolkata. vs. M/S Shalini Properties & Developers Private Limited., Kolkata

In the result the appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 171/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 171/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-7(3) -Vs.- M/S. Shalini Properties & Developers Kolkata Pvt. Limited., Kolkata [Pan : Aahcs 7896 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 301Section 37(1)

…ce therein to having dissented from or overruled the decision of the Privy Council in the Bank of Chettinand case 8 ITR 522 (PC). In any of the principles appears to have been reiterated with approval by the Constitution Bench of this court in Mathuram’s case 8 SCC 667 para 12. We are therefore unable to accept the contention of the respondent that there has been a very drastic change in the final jurisprudence in India, as would entail a departure. In our judgment from Westmister’s case to Bank of Chettinands case to Mathurams case despite the hiccups of MacDowell;s case, the law has remained the same. We are un…

Kiran Navin Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2601/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deysmt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai Pan – Abwpd5848A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Milind Rajguru
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…ncerned, 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. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2004] 10 SCC 1 and the Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999] 8 SCC 667 and concluded that wl2ere 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 ilieframeit'ork of…

Bhavya Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 21(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4389/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…Andhra Pradesh State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution v, Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd., AIR 1989 SC 611, p. 614 : (1989) 1 SCC 44; Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, JT 1999 (8) SC 505, pp. 511, 512 : AIR 2000 SC 109, p. 113 : (1999) 8 SCC 667. See further Hansraj & Sons v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 2002 SC 2692, pp. 2698, 2699 : (2002) 6 SCC 227; Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry v. ACER India Ltd., (2004) 8 SCC 173, p. 184: (2004) 8 JT 53.) In refuting the doctrine of 'the substance of the matter' LORD TOMLIN observed: “"It is said that in revenue cases there is a doctri…