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 366,470 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

M/S. Narain Properties Limited, Kanpur vs. ACIT-VI, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 354/LKW/2010[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Jan 2026AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 45

…ns are behind creation of losses by internal sale and purchase of shares in one case or the other which is beyond reasoning from the view point of commercial expediency. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark decision in the case of Mc. Dowell and Company Ltd. 154 ITR 148 applicable in such cases on colourable devices to defraud revenue. Further it is seen that this is a case of investment company where either gain or loss in sale of shares has to be assessed either as capital gain which is to be computed in view of provision of section 45 to 54 of 1.T. Act or capital loss which is not admissible at all. The ass…

Pinkal Dilip Bhansali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1701/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sapnesh D Sheth (Virtually
Section 148Section 69C

…e claim of genuine purchases. claim of genuine purchases. 2.11 The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (154 ITR 148) was invoked to hold that (154 ITR 148) was invoked to hold that McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT colourable devices cannot be part of legitimate tax planning and colourable devices cannot be part of legitimate tax planning and colourable devices cannot be part of legitimate tax planning and that transactions structured only to evade tax must be disreg…

Worldview Education Services Private Lmited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1056/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1056/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Worldview Education Services Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad – 500 016. Ward-17(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw9480F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…passed in respect of the two Trusts, whose returns of income are intricately connected with the suspected transactions of the assessee. The action of the CIT thus suffers from inherent contradiction. 22. Regarding the judgment in Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd. ([1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the concept of colourable tax planning device to reduce the tax liability (as propounded in the said judgment) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the CIT has not suspected the bona fides in creation of the Trusts and their activities or that no material is found showing that the assessee had made an effort to reduce the…

Dindayal Magasvargiya Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Sangli, Circle Sangli

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

ITA 205/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.205/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dindayal Magasvargiya Vs. Acit, Circle Sangli, Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., Sangli. At Waghwadi, Post Kameri, Tal. Walwa, Sangli- 415403. Pan : Aaaad0254E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 For Ay 2014-15, Being The Year Beyond 4 Years & For Which Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Has Already Been Passed, Thereby

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 438

…t was never payable. As per provisions of section 37 of the Act, provision for unascertained liability is not allowable deduction for purposes of income tax. Further, it has been held by the Supreme Court in McDowell and Co. Ltd Vs Commercial Tax Officer (SC) 154 ITR 148 that colorable devices are not part of tax planning Tan View of the above a sum of Rs 2,42,00,000/- for AY. 2014-15 remains unexplained. Hence, an amount of Rs. 2,42,00,000/- debited to profit and loss loss account as interest on loan from the Govt. of Maharashtra as explained above and not paid to the Government is disallowed and added to the in…

DCIT - 19(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs. Dishant Deepak Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4281/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh
Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

…ble device find that, the principles relating to use of colourable device laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co Ltd. Vs CTO (1977) (1 SCR 914) McDowell & Co Ltd. Vs CTO (1977) (1 SCR 914) McDowell & Co Ltd. Vs CTO (1977) (1 SCR 914) (SC) cannot be applied on the facts of the present case. cannot be applied on the facts of the present case. cannot be applied on the facts of the present case. On similar facts, Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in similar facts, Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in similar…

Venus Drugs and Cosmetics Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Word-8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appe

ITA 5933/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: None
Section 69C

…nt and the AO have cited judgments delivered by superior appellate forums. The AO cited judgments delivered by superior appellate forums. The AO cited judgments delivered by superior appellate forums. The AO primarily relies on the cases like McDowells [1985] 154 ITR 148 primarily relies on the cases like McDowells [1985] 154 ITR 148 primarily relies on the cases like McDowells [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), Azaadi Bachao Andolan & others v/s Union (SC), Azaadi Bachao Andolan & others v/s Union of India 256 ITR of India 256 ITR 563, Bhopal Fire & General Insurance Limited v/s Commissioner of 563, Bhopal Fire & General…

Lic Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5037/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Mr. Sunil Bhandari &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 80G

…red under section 80G. Furthermore, the AO's analysis aligns with the Supreme Court's Furthermore, the AO's analysis aligns with the Supreme Court's Furthermore, the AO's analysis aligns with the Supreme Court's principle in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [(1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC)] principle in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [(1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC)] principle in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [(1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC)] where the Hon'ble Court held that tax planning cannot be a where the Hon'ble Court held that tax planning cannot be a where the Hon'ble Court held that tax planning cannot be a colorable device to defeat legisl…

Shri Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kanpur

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

ITA 575/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Vs. Dy. Cit-3, Kanpur 61/139, Sita Ram Mohal, Kanpur- 208001 (U.P.) Pan: Acaps5484N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Kanpur, Passed On 29.07.2019 Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 29.12.2017 Has Been Dismissed. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,39,81,850- Made By The Ao Without Any Valid Reason. 2. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Disallowing The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains U/S 10(38) Of The Act & The Same Is Against Facts & Law. 3. That The Various Case Law Cited By The Revenue In Rejecting The Claim Is Wrong In As Much As The Facts Of The Appellant'S Case Are Distinguishable From The Cited Case Law. 4. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Invoking Section 68 Of The Act & The Same Is Not Justified & Unwarranted. 5. That It Was Wrong On The Part Of Revenue To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act In As Much As Initial Onus On The Assessee To Establish Identity, Credit Capacity Of The Creditor & Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Discharged. 6. That The Finding Of The Ld Ao That 'Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1 39,81,850/ Claimed By The Assessee Is Held To Have Been Arranged By The Assessee Through

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…fore the AO and justified his share transactions. Therefore, the ld. AO placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801, CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC), McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO 154 ITR 148 (SC) and various judgment of the ITAT to reject the claim of long term capital gains, holding them to be bogus. While doing so, he also discussed the movement of the script of M/s Jackson Investments Ltd., and raised question marks on the votality displayed in its price. Accordingly, he made an addition of Rs. 1,39,81,850/- on this account and in…

Narendra Shantilal Bapna, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-28(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4198/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnarendra Shantilal Bapna V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Flat No. A2501, Plot No. R3 बनाम 28(2)(3) B Emerald Bay, Sector 14, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Nerul, Navi Mumbai – Station Complex, Vashi, Navi 400 706, Maharashtra Mumbai– 400703, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb8458J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.DR)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…try operator as per finding of Investigation wing, Kolkata. It had no assets, employee, business or commercial activities. This proved that the transaction, which was a colorable devise as explained by the Hon’ble SC in the case of MC Dowell & Co. Ltd V/ СТО (154 ITR 148).It concluded that the funds amounting to Rs. 2,33,24,050/- which was the assessee's own unexplained money, were introduced in the form of LTCG of Rs. 2,22,79,435/- through a colorable device under a pre-meditated and well planned strategy. Before purchasing of alleged shares, the assessee did not even obtain independent valuation from a third pa…

Axiomatic Itech Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 191/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.191/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Axiomatic iTech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, 801, Shapath-2, Opp. Rajpath Ward-1(1)(4), Club, S G Road, bodakdev, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [PAN No.AAJCA1274G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S N Divatia, AR Respondent by: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR 17.09.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 06.11.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assess…

Mohanbhai Becharbhai Chauhan, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1570/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi V. Pandya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 271FSection 272ASection 272A(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…01 (SC), the CIT(Appeals) invoked the test of human probabilities and concluded that the claim of agricultural income was not substantiated. The CIT(Appeals) also referred to Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), and held that unexplained money, if not properly explained by the assessee, can be assessed as income under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer was upheld CIT(Appeals) and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed b…

DCIT Circle 61(1), Delhi vs. Sukhbir Singh Chabra HUF, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.315/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Sukhbir Singh Chabra Huf Circle 61(1), Vs. 6, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. Motia Khan, Delhi. Pan No.Aaahs5683P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 92C

…ITA No.315/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.315/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम DCIT, SUKHBIR SINGH CHABRA HUF Circle 61(1), Vs. 6, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. Motia Khan, Delhi. PAN No.AAAHS5683P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. & Assessee by Shri A.T. Panda, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Revenue by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 21.08.2025 04.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD,…

Anshu Sahai (HUF), Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle

ITA 468/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139Section 153CSection 153D

…th of the assessee. No Court or the Tribunal should countenance an assessed the the attitude of failure to produce relevant material and ask the adversary to disprove it. This attitude was decried by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC).” Further as referred in the assessment order, the appearing in the seized materialME TAX DEPARTMEference to the appellant is COMPLETE & FULL STATEMENT OF PARTIES IN WHOSE CASE SEARCH ACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE The appellant has contended that complete statement of all the concerned person were never provided to the assessesee. It is also im…

Anshu Sahai (HUF), Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2, Jaipur

ITA 467/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139Section 153CSection 153D

…th of the assessee. No Court or the Tribunal should countenance an assessed the the attitude of failure to produce relevant material and ask the adversary to disprove it. This attitude was decried by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC)." Further as referred in the assessment order, the appearing in the seized materialME TAX DEPARTMEference to the appellant is COMPLETE & FULL STATEMENT OF PARTIES IN WHOSE CASE SEARCH ACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE The appellant has contended that complete statement of all the concerned person were never provided to the assessesee. It is also…

Anshu Sahai (HUF), Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2, Jaipur

ITA 466/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

…mouth of the assessee. No Court or the Tribunal should countenance an assessed the the attitude of failure to produce relevant material and ask the adversary to disprove it. This attitude was decried by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC)." Further as referred in the assessment order, the appearing in the seized materialME TAX DEPARTMEference to the appellant is COMPLETE & FULL STATEMENT OF PARTIES IN WHOSE CASE SEARCH ACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE The appellant has contended that complete statement of all the concerned person were never provided to the assessesee. It is also import…

Erevmax Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Tp-1, Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2551/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Us In The Paper Book)

Section 143(3)

…the assessee and has left an adverse mark on the balance sheet for several future years as well. Thus, this issue along, with the TP adjustment issue, have to be considered holistically. We may draw strength from the case of Mcdowell and Co. Ltd. reported in 154 ITR 148 (SC), in which a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has mandated lifting of the “Corporate Veil” to determine where legitimate tax planning ends and evasion begins. 4.3 Summing up the findings in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 (supra), it needs to be reiterated that the Ld. AO’s order is set aside and remanded back to the Ld. AO/TPO for determ…

Spandana Sphoorty Financial Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 821/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 69A

…iance is placed on the following legal decision of several courts with there respective head notes: 1. CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 526 (Raj.) – Held that RBI norms cannot be ignored for income recognition. 2. McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). a) CIT V. MCMILLAN & CO. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC) : ‘The Supreme Court held that a change in accounting method must be bona fide and should not be used as a tool for tax evasion.' B) CIT V. PUNJAB STAINLESS STEEL INDUSTRIES (2014) 364 ITR 144): 'The Court ruled that an assessee cannot adopt an inconsistent method of accounting if it results i…

Alka Khandaka, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1014/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sauravh Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…h to anonymous buyers without identity proof, especially during demonetization. The conduct of the assessee shows that the so-called “sales” were only a façade to introduce unaccounted cash. Colourable Device Following the principle in McDowell & Co. Ltd. (154 ITR 148, SC), colourable devices cannot form part of legitimate tax planning. The attempt of the assessee to give colour of genuineness to unexplained money by routing it through fabricated purchases and fictitious cash sales is a clear subterfuge. Conclusion 35 Alka Khandaka vs. ITO In light of the above, the addition of ₹44,61,000 made by the AO u/s…

Sanjay Kumar Karnani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 675/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…the mouth of the assessee. No Court or the Tribunal should countenance an assessee the attitude of failure to produce relevant material and ask the adversary to disprove it. This attitude was decried by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC)." (3) Also the specific presumptions provided under the income tax act also operates against the appellant and the appellant is bound by the documents found during the course of search and seizure action. Presumption as to assets, books of account, etc. 292C. (1) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or oth…

Sanjay Kumar Karnani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 673/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…the mouth of the assessee. No Court or the Tribunal should countenance an assessee the attitude of failure to produce relevant material and ask the adversary to disprove it. This attitude was decried by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC)." (3) Also the specific presumptions provided under the income tax act also operates against the appellant and the appellant is bound by the documents found during the course of search and seizure action. Presumption as to assets, books of account, etc. 292C. (1) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other…