McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO

Blackstone Fp Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd., Mauritius vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Circle-1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

…by the entities of Blackstone of Cayman Island, and, accordingly, it is a perfect case for lifting the corporate veil”. The Assessing Officer then elaborately discussed the law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co Ltd Vs CTO [(1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC)] and referred to certain other decisions, namely- Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT (34 ITR 888), by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Navantara G Agarwal Vs CIT [(1994) 207 ITR 639 (Bom)] and CIT Vs Akshav Textile Trading Agencies Ltd [(2007) 304 ITR 401 (Bom)]. The Assessing Officer thus concluded that by applying the principles em…

Blackstone Fp Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd., Mauritius vs. DCIT Intl Tax Cir.1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

…by the entities of Blackstone of Cayman Island, and, accordingly, it is a perfect case for lifting the corporate veil”. The Assessing Officer then elaborately discussed the law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co Ltd Vs CTO [(1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC)] and referred to certain other decisions, namely- Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT (34 ITR 888), by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Navantara G Agarwal Vs CIT [(1994) 207 ITR 639 (Bom)] and CIT Vs Akshav Textile Trading Agencies Ltd [(2007) 304 ITR 401 (Bom)]. The Assessing Officer thus concluded that by applying the principles em…

Deepak Valji Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

…view to evade taxes.” 10 Shri Deepak Valji Karia 5. Assessing Officer relied on the following case law to make the additions: - (i) SumatiDayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC). (ii) Durga Prasad More Vs. CIT (82 ITR 540) (SC). (iii) McDowell & Co. Ltd., Vs. CTO (154 ITR 148) (SC). (iv) CIT vs. P. Mohankala & Others (291 ITR 278 (SC). (v) Shamin M. Bharvani (1TA No.4906/Mum/2011) of Hon'ble ITAT, 'E' Bench, Mumbai. (vi) Hersh Win Chadha Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005 of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before Ld CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions for each of the point…

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…a 8.1), (para 9,1) Zee Learn Essel Prepack and Jayneer Capital (para 10-1) have been discussed) The decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 and Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 22 Taxman 11/154 ITR 148 (SC) were invoked and it was held that the transaction is a colourable device. The Assessing Officer also held that the resultant gain is to be taxed under the head 'income from other sources'. The Assessing Officer finally adopted the market value of the shares and calculated the income at Rs.57,90,33,060/- as under.— No. of shares Average Shar…

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…a 8.1), (para 9,1) Zee Learn Essel Prepack and Jayneer Capital (para 10-1) have been discussed) The decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 and Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 22 Taxman 11/154 ITR 148 (SC) were invoked and it was held that the transaction is a colourable device. The Assessing Officer also held that the resultant gain is to be taxed under the head 'income from other sources'. The Assessing Officer finally adopted the market value of the shares and calculated the income at Rs.57,90,33,060/- as under.— No. of shares Average Shar…

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

…on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd 63 ITR 609 where it was held that the I.T. Authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of Corporate Entity and to look into reality of transaction. In the case of McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148(SC) it was stated that implications of 6 A.Y.2012-13 tax avoidance are manifold. First, there is substantial loss of much needed public revenue. Next, there is serious disturbance caused to the economy of the country due to piling of mountains of black money, causing inflation. Thus, there is “the large hidden loss” to the community (as pointed o…

Mirah Dekor Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 14, Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

…le to AO it is held that AO was correct in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 and has correctly issued notice u/s 148. The appeal of assessee, therefore does not succeed on this account.” 19. Learned CIT(A) further referred to following case laws :- • McDowell’s (154 ITR 148) (SC) • ITO Vs. Purshottam Das Bangur (90 Taxmann.com 541)(SC) • Phoolchand Bajrang Lal Vs. ITO (69 Taxman 627)(SC) • Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Vs. ACIT (48 Taxmann.com 20(Bombay HC) • Sohar Siraj Lokhandwala Vs. ACIT (77 Taxman 302) (Bombay HC) • Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (15 Taxmann.com 275) (Bombay HC)” Apropos issue of bogus purchase…