McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO

154 ITR 148Supreme Court of India1985#68 most cited

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.

741

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO · 154 ITR 148 · tax avoidance vs. tax planning · colourable device · substance over form · lifting corporate veil · tax evasion · accommodation entry · genuineness of transaction · sections 143(3) · 147 · 68 · 69C

Also reported as

22 Taxmann 113 SCC 2301 SCR 914

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 68Section 69CSection 133ASection 132(4)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

colourable deviceazadi bachao andolanlive linkentry operatorpenny stocksection 10(38)genuineness of the transactionlong term capital gainsaddition u/s 68share application moneyaccommodation entrysection 131

Judgments citing McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO

Addl.C.I.T. RG. 7(1), Mumbai vs. Peninsula Land Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1479/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)

…ribunal dismissed identical contentions, raised by the Revenue alleging the transaction of sale of shares of MTL resulting in Short/Long Term Capital Loss being a colorable device hit by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowells & Co (154 ITR 148). The relevant extract of the above decision of the Tribunal reads as under: ITA. No. 4600 & 4456/Mum/2009: Assessment Year: 2006-07 ITA No. 1479 & 1636 /Mum/2012: Assessment Year: 2007-08 “11. The undisputed facts that emerges are that the assessee was holding shareholding in the joint venture entity namely MTL. The other partner expressed in…

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Peninsula Land Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4600/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)

…ribunal dismissed identical contentions, raised by the Revenue alleging the transaction of sale of shares of MTL resulting in Short/Long Term Capital Loss being a colorable device hit by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowells & Co (154 ITR 148). The relevant extract of the above decision of the Tribunal reads as under: ITA. No. 4600 & 4456/Mum/2009: Assessment Year: 2006-07 ITA No. 1479 & 1636 /Mum/2012: Assessment Year: 2007-08 “11. The undisputed facts that emerges are that the assessee was holding shareholding in the joint venture entity namely MTL. The other partner expressed in…

Sarika Amit Sanap, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Aurangabad

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 77/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 131

…able device to give the colour of genuineness of these transactions to which she was successful in bringing back her own unaccounted cash into her books without the need to pay any taxes. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. Vs. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) has given a strong verdict against any such arrangements by stating that “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 resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting t…

Sangeeta Basavraj Mangrule, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Aurangabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 706/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…has failed to substantiate the genuineness of alleged share transactions in respect of long term capital gain U/s 10(38) of the Act. In view of above discussions, the landmark decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell and Company Limited, 154 ITR 148 are squarely applicable in this case wherein it has been held that tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of the law and any 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. However, the 7 Sangeet…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2281/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…er concern by minimizing its losses and to provide funds to its sister concern for its business activities in the guise of so-called oilcake business. Therefore, the AO also applied the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell vs. CTO, (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). Hence, he treated the profit element of the credit sale made to its sister concern M/s. Rasathe Garments at Rs.1,71,76,214/- and treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 19.2 The CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO simpliciter by observing in para 15.2 as under:- “15.2 During…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2280/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…er concern by minimizing its losses and to provide funds to its sister concern for its business activities in the guise of so-called oilcake business. Therefore, the AO also applied the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell vs. CTO, (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). Hence, he treated the profit element of the credit sale made to its sister concern M/s. Rasathe Garments at Rs.1,71,76,214/- and treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 19.2 The CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO simpliciter by observing in para 15.2 as under:- “15.2 During…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2279/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…er concern by minimizing its losses and to provide funds to its sister concern for its business activities in the guise of so-called oilcake business. Therefore, the AO also applied the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell vs. CTO, (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). Hence, he treated the profit element of the credit sale made to its sister concern M/s. Rasathe Garments at Rs.1,71,76,214/- and treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 19.2 The CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO simpliciter by observing in para 15.2 as under:- “15.2 During…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2278/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…er concern by minimizing its losses and to provide funds to its sister concern for its business activities in the guise of so-called oilcake business. Therefore, the AO also applied the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell vs. CTO, (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). Hence, he treated the profit element of the credit sale made to its sister concern M/s. Rasathe Garments at Rs.1,71,76,214/- and treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 19.2 The CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO simpliciter by observing in para 15.2 as under:- “15.2 During…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2277/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…er concern by minimizing its losses and to provide funds to its sister concern for its business activities in the guise of so-called oilcake business. Therefore, the AO also applied the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell vs. CTO, (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). Hence, he treated the profit element of the credit sale made to its sister concern M/s. Rasathe Garments at Rs.1,71,76,214/- and treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 19.2 The CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO simpliciter by observing in para 15.2 as under:- “15.2 During…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2276/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…er concern by minimizing its losses and to provide funds to its sister concern for its business activities in the guise of so-called oilcake business. Therefore, the AO also applied the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell vs. CTO, (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). Hence, he treated the profit element of the credit sale made to its sister concern M/s. Rasathe Garments at Rs.1,71,76,214/- and treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 19.2 The CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO simpliciter by observing in para 15.2 as under:- “15.2 During…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2275/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…er concern by minimizing its losses and to provide funds to its sister concern for its business activities in the guise of so-called oilcake business. Therefore, the AO also applied the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell vs. CTO, (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). Hence, he treated the profit element of the credit sale made to its sister concern M/s. Rasathe Garments at Rs.1,71,76,214/- and treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 19.2 The CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO simpliciter by observing in para 15.2 as under:- “15.2 During…

M/S. V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons, Virudhunagar vs. PCIT-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1765/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…er concern by minimizing its losses and to provide funds to its sister concern for its business activities in the guise of so-called oilcake business. Therefore, the AO also applied the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell vs. CTO, (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). Hence, he treated the profit element of the credit sale made to its sister concern M/s. Rasathe Garments at Rs.1,71,76,214/- and treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 19.2 The CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO simpliciter by observing in para 15.2 as under:- “15.2 During…

Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 520/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 253Section 92CSection 92D

…lete code in itself, in that sense. There are thus no legally sustainable merits in learned Departmental Representative's passionate plea for invoking principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126 : (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), which, inter alia, holds that "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 restoring to dubious methods" and that "it is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuge". It is thus not ev…

ITO - 13(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Tool Art Deco India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3704/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). But The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Addition Of The Ld. Ao & Allowed The Appeal. Being Aggrieved, The Revenue Filed An Appeal Before Us.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO-13(3)(4), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Tool Art Deco India R.No.216B, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Add.1) 61/4, Ajit Bhavan Mumbai J.B. Nagar, Andheri, Mumbai -400 059 Add.2) B-2, Santunjay Co- op Hsg. L.T. Road Mumbai – 400 091 PAN/GIR No.AACCT3757G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Airiju Jaikaran Date of Hearing 28/07/2022 Date of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE (J.M): The instant appeal was filed against order of the…

Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 7163/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR
Section 68

…umstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 and McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148. & Co. 154 ITR 148. Before us, in the written submission filed, the us, in the written submission filed, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also declared gross profit of declared gross profit of ₹1,21,…

Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 7162/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR
Section 68

…umstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 and McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148. & Co. 154 ITR 148. Before us, in the written submission filed, the us, in the written submission filed, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also declared gross profit of declared gross profit of ₹1,21,…

Sarvesh Mercantile P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 4634/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR
Section 68

…umstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 and McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148. & Co. 154 ITR 148. Before us, in the written submission filed, the us, in the written submission filed, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also declared gross profit of declared gross profit of ₹1,21,…

Denesh Kumar Sachdeva (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-56(1), New Delhi

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 9562/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 10(38)

…laws:- i. Suman Podda vs ITO, ITA No.841/2019 Dated 17.09.2019 (Del.) ii. Udit Kalra vs ITO, ITA No.10774/2019 dated 08.03.2019 (Del.) iii. CIT vs Durga Prasad More (1972) 82 ITR 540 (SC) iv. Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801(SC) v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) vi. ACIT vs SoNath Maini (2006 100 TJ Chd 917 (Chandigarh ITAT) vii. CIT vs P. Mohana Kala (15/05/2017) (SC) viii. Haresh Win Chadha in ITA No.3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005, (Del.ITAT) ix. Rajkumar B.Agarwal, vs DCIT (ITA Nos. 1648 & 1649 x. Anip Rasto vs ITO in ITA No.3809/Del/2018, dated 08.01.2019 (Del.ITAT) xi. Anju Ratogi vs ITO in ITA N…

Dinesh Kumar Sachdeva, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-56(1), New Delhi

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 9561/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 10(38)

…laws:- i. Suman Podda vs ITO, ITA No.841/2019 Dated 17.09.2019 (Del.) ii. Udit Kalra vs ITO, ITA No.10774/2019 dated 08.03.2019 (Del.) iii. CIT vs Durga Prasad More (1972) 82 ITR 540 (SC) iv. Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801(SC) v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) vi. ACIT vs SoNath Maini (2006 100 TJ Chd 917 (Chandigarh ITAT) vii. CIT vs P. Mohana Kala (15/05/2017) (SC) viii. Haresh Win Chadha in ITA No.3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005, (Del.ITAT) ix. Rajkumar B.Agarwal, vs DCIT (ITA Nos. 1648 & 1649 x. Anip Rasto vs ITO in ITA No.3809/Del/2018, dated 08.01.2019 (Del.ITAT) xi. Anju Ratogi vs ITO in ITA N…

Dinesh Kumar Sachdeva, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-56(1), New Delhi

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 9560/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 10(38)

…laws:- i. Suman Podda vs ITO, ITA No.841/2019 Dated 17.09.2019 (Del.) ii. Udit Kalra vs ITO, ITA No.10774/2019 dated 08.03.2019 (Del.) iii. CIT vs Durga Prasad More (1972) 82 ITR 540 (SC) iv. Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801(SC) v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) vi. ACIT vs SoNath Maini (2006 100 TJ Chd 917 (Chandigarh ITAT) vii. CIT vs P. Mohana Kala (15/05/2017) (SC) viii. Haresh Win Chadha in ITA No.3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005, (Del.ITAT) ix. Rajkumar B.Agarwal, vs DCIT (ITA Nos. 1648 & 1649 x. Anip Rasto vs ITO in ITA No.3809/Del/2018, dated 08.01.2019 (Del.ITAT) xi. Anju Ratogi vs ITO in ITA N…