What is McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO authority for?

The Supreme Court held that while legitimate tax planning is permissible, transactions structured as a "colourable device" or "subterfuge" solely to avoid tax are impermissible. It mandates a judicial shift to look beyond the form to the substance of a transaction, allowing the lifting of the corporate veil in tax evasion arrangements.

How many judgments cite McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO?

741 judgments on BharatTax cite McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (154 ITR 148), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 147, Section 68, Section 69C, Section 133A.

McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (154 ITR 148)

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1760/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

…his is placed on in this regard upon the decision in the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO regard upon the decision in the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO regard upon the decision in the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR(SC) 126 : (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). CTR(SC) 126 : (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). 6.12 The contention of the assessee that in the hands of the company 6.12 The contention of the assessee that in the hands of the company 6.12 The contention of the assessee that in the hands of the company cost of assets is re cost of assets is re-valued value of the assets as the company on as the co…

Balalji Lifestyle Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3172/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3172/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Balaji Lifestyle बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-7(1) Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. 118/120, Ashoka House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb0234H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal (Adv) Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai Dated 02.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature So Does Not Require Any Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri N. M. Porwal (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 288ASection 69B

…’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC), and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Major Metal Vs. Union of India (2012) 19 taxmann.com 176 (Bom), and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mcdowel & Co Vs. CTO 154 ITR 148 and Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT 222 ITR 831 held that Rs.2,85,50,000/- brought in the books of account of assessee on share capital/premium needs to be brought to tax as per the provisions u/s 68 of the Act. And accordingly, he added Rs. 2,85,50,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein assessee raised the legal…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Vinod 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 66/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14