McDowell & Co. Ltd.(supra) in UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

260 ITR 6High Court2003#10690 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing McDowell & Co. Ltd.(supra) in UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SREE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 1392/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

…held that even if transactions are genuine and even if it is acted upon, if the transaction is entered into with the intention to avoid taxes, then the transaction would constitute a colorable device. He has cited case of Twinstar Holdings Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 6 (Bombay) wherein similar analogy was decided. Further in the case of Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT 2001 250 ITR 291 (Delhi) it was held that a colourable transaction is one which is seemingly valid, but a feigned or counterfeit transaction is entered into for ulterior purpose. In the case of Workmen of Associated Rubber Industries Ltd. v…

SUPERIOR FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 3113/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

Section 10(38)Section 111Section 143(3)

…te appended in the Notes to Accounts for the FY 2002-03. As regards the argument /he Ld.DR that such conversion is to be treated as a sham transaction based on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Twin star Holdings Ltd Vs Anand Kedia (260 ITR 6 Bom), we are of the view that the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the facts in the present case as the former relates to such conversion by three investment companies and transmission of shares thereon. 6.3 Regarding the third issue whether the assessee can be an Investor as well as a speculator in shares simultaneously, the Ld.CIT(…

SHIBIR INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1688/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A.T. Varkey

…appended in the No.tes to Accounts for the FY 2002-03. As regards the argument the Ld. DR that such conversion is to be treated as a sham transaction based on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Twin star Holdings Ltd Vs Anand Kedia (260 ITR 6 Bom), we are of the view that the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the facts in the present case as the former relates to such conversion by three investment companies and transmission of shares thereon. 6.3. Regarding the third issue whether the assessee can be an investor as well as a speculator in shares simultaneously, the Ld. CI…

DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4592/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “डी”, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No.4591 and 4592/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 and 2011-12) Shri Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, Income Tax Officer 21(3)(1), बनाम/ 113/114 Samundra Mahal, Worli, Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : ACXPA2281J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : I.T.A. No.1055/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Asstt.CIT -21(2), Smt.Kiran Aggarwal, बनाम/ Room No.115, 113/114 Samundra Mahal, 1st floor, Piramal Chamber…

DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “डी”, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No.4591 and 4592/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 and 2011-12) Shri Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, Income Tax Officer 21(3)(1), बनाम/ 113/114 Samundra Mahal, Worli, Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : ACXPA2281J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : I.T.A. No.1055/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Asstt.CIT -21(2), Smt.Kiran Aggarwal, बनाम/ Room No.115, 113/114 Samundra Mahal, 1st floor, Piramal Chamber…

ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI vs. KIRAN AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1055/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “डी”, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No.4591 and 4592/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 and 2011-12) Shri Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, Income Tax Officer 21(3)(1), बनाम/ 113/114 Samundra Mahal, Worli, Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : ACXPA2281J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : I.T.A. No.1055/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Asstt.CIT -21(2), Smt.Kiran Aggarwal, बनाम/ Room No.115, 113/114 Samundra Mahal, 1st floor, Piramal Chamber…

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)

…ile Trading & Agencies (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 401 (confirming that there was no departure from the principles/ratio of the decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd.(supra) in UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC)) Twinstar Holdings Ltd.v. Dy. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 6 (Bom) It needs to be appreciated that though the Revenue has sought to impugn the transaction/s as bogus/not genuine, the issue is qua the applicability of section 68, whereby the statute itself casts a burden of proof on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of a credit. The issue, which is purely in the realm of a factual…

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

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)

…ile Trading & Agencies (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 401 (confirming that there was no departure from the principles/ratio of the decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd.(supra) in UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC)) Twinstar Holdings Ltd.v. Dy. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 6 (Bom) It needs to be appreciated that though the Revenue has sought to impugn the transaction/s as bogus/not genuine, the issue is qua the applicability of section 68, whereby the statute itself casts a burden of proof on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of a credit. The issue, which is purely in the realm of a factual…

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)

…ile Trading & Agencies (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 401 (confirming that there was no departure from the principles/ratio of the decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd.(supra) in UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC)) Twinstar Holdings Ltd.v. Dy. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 6 (Bom) (A.Y. 2008-09) It needs to be appreciated that though the Revenue has sought to impugn the transaction/s as bogus/not genuine, the issue is qua the applicability of section 68, whereby the statute itself casts a burden of proof on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of a credit. The issue, which is purely in the realm…

NATHURAM RAMNARAYAN P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2583/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआमकय अऩीर सं. / Ita No.2583/Mum./2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007–08) M/S. Nathuram Ramnarayan Pvt. Ltd. Rustom Building …….………. अऩीरधथी / 29, Veer Nariman Road Appellant Mumbai 400 023 Pan – Aaacn1289P V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्मथी / Range–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ननधधारयती की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri H.S. Raheja यधजस्व की ओय से / Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal सुनवधई की तधयीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing – 08.10.2015 Date Of Order – 30.10.2015

For Appellant: Shri H.S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal

…the Hon. Supreme Court has held that even if the transaction is genuine, it could be ignored, if the object is tax avoidance and the method adopted is a colourable device. Similarly, in its decision in the case Twinstar Holdings Ltd. V/s Arland Kedia, Dy. CIT 260 ITR 6, the Hon. Bombay High Court has in the context of exercise of powers u/s 281 of the ITA, held that transfer of shares intended to defeat the process of recovery was not a bonafide business arrangement. Tested on these principles, the transactions in the Appellant's case also turn out to be attempts to defeat the process of law. It is thus found tha…