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

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 5742/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…end & Claimed by the Income, Operation other assessee Income 2011-12 393934 2380822 2774756 114440 0.01 2012-13 368137 368137 (0.05) (820515) 12. Thereafter, he has quoted the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd. in (1985) 154 ITR 148 and after detail reasoning and referring to catena of judgments, he held that the credits aggregating to Rs.73,50,00,000/- is to be taxed u/s.68, because the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the parties. 13. Ld. CIT(A) though held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, addition…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Steel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5741/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…end & Claimed by the Income, Operation other assessee Income 2011-12 393934 2380822 2774756 114440 0.01 2012-13 368137 368137 (0.05) (820515) 12. Thereafter, he has quoted the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd. in (1985) 154 ITR 148 and after detail reasoning and referring to catena of judgments, he held that the credits aggregating to Rs.73,50,00,000/- is to be taxed u/s.68, because the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the parties. 13. Ld. CIT(A) though held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, addition…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunlight Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd., Sahibabad

ITA 5740/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…end & Claimed by the Income, Operation other assessee Income 2011-12 393934 2380822 2774756 114440 0.01 2012-13 368137 368137 (0.05) (820515) 12. Thereafter, he has quoted the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd. in (1985) 154 ITR 148 and after detail reasoning and referring to catena of judgments, he held that the credits aggregating to Rs.73,50,00,000/- is to be taxed u/s.68, because the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the parties. 13. Ld. CIT(A) though held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, addition…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sintex Consumers Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 5736/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…end & Claimed by the Income, Operation other assessee Income 2011-12 393934 2380822 2774756 114440 0.01 2012-13 368137 368137 (0.05) (820515) 12. Thereafter, he has quoted the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd. in (1985) 154 ITR 148 and after detail reasoning and referring to catena of judgments, he held that the credits aggregating to Rs.73,50,00,000/- is to be taxed u/s.68, because the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the parties. 13. Ld. CIT(A) though held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, addition…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Supreme Placement Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…end & Claimed by the Income, Operation other assessee Income 2011-12 393934 2380822 2774756 114440 0.01 2012-13 368137 368137 (0.05) (820515) 12. Thereafter, he has quoted the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd. in (1985) 154 ITR 148 and after detail reasoning and referring to catena of judgments, he held that the credits aggregating to Rs.73,50,00,000/- is to be taxed u/s.68, because the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the parties. 13. Ld. CIT(A) though held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, addition…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 4691/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…end & Claimed by the Income, Operation other assessee Income 2011-12 393934 2380822 2774756 114440 0.01 2012-13 368137 368137 (0.05) (820515) 12. Thereafter, he has quoted the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd. in (1985) 154 ITR 148 and after detail reasoning and referring to catena of judgments, he held that the credits aggregating to Rs.73,50,00,000/- is to be taxed u/s.68, because the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the parties. 13. Ld. CIT(A) though held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, addition…

A.C.I.T., Circle-6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Overtop Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 686/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 131Section 68

…ITA No.686/Kol/2019 M/s Overtop Marketing Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2015-16 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM and Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 686/Kol/2019 Assessment Year:2015-16 ACIT, Circle-6(2), Kolkata M/s Overtop Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. (PAN: AABCO 6138 R) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 22.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement 15.03.2021 For the Appellant Shri Supriyo Paul, Addl. CIT For the Respondent Ms. Shikha Agarwal, ACA ORDER Per Shri A. T. Varkey, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the or…

Sindya Securities and Investments Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle-6(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1816/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri G. Manjunathai.T.A.No.1816/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Sindya Securities & Investments Pvt.Ltd., Income Tax, 609, Lakshmi Bhavan, 5Th Floor Corporate Circle-6(2), Sundaram Avenue, Mount Road, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Pan: Aalcs 3297B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 09.12.2020
Section 234BSection 56(2)(viib)

…ction to overcome the amended provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard it is very essential to recollect the land mark decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc Dowell & Co Ltd. Vs Commercial tax Officer(1985) 154 ITR 148, where it was held that the tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. 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. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes hon…

M.Kiran Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3374/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 2(22)(e)

…n provided u/s.10(38) of the Act, but not a genuine transaction of purchase and sale of shares. The ld.CIT(A) has discussed the issue in light of various judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc Dowells reported in 154 ITR 148 to arrive to a conclusion that the assessee had adapted a colorable device to avoid tax payable to the exchequer by way of bogus long term capital gain. Accordingly, sustained additions made by the AO by holding that the transactions between the assessee and the company were mere accommodation entries to benefit the assessee by claiming exemption…

ITO 8 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhairav Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4126/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4126/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito 8(2)(1) बिधम/ Bhairav Steel Enterprises Room No.259/A,2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 10, Kanti Nagar, A/30, Road, Mumbai-400020. Rajgruhi, Behind J. B. Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb9118K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 148

…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 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 "die large hidden loss" to the community (as pointed out by Master S…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…f the Hon„ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 0706 which to a very large extent had watarad down the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in erstwhile case of Dowell and Co, Ltd. V. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 148, In the said case of UOI Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed asunder: “In our judgment, from Westminster's case [1936] AC 1? (HL); 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad"s case [1940] 8 [TR 522 (PC) to Mathura‟s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell's case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same. W…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri C V Madhusudhan Reddy

In the result, we do not find any merit in

ITA/456/2013HC Karnataka24 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 260Section 260A

…her the Tribunal was justified in law in placing reliance on its own order wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal did not recognized the colourable device employed by the assessee as envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd., (154 ITR 148) which resulted in massive tax evasion in the guise of tax planning laced with multi layered transactions?". "(ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in placing on its own order wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has not considered the fact that the shares belonging to the assessee were ultimately transferred to Godrej Group as a 3 pa…

Mantram Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Faridabad

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

ITA 6170/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mantram Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Ward 1(5), Near Neelam Flyover, Faridabad. Sector-20B, Faridabad. Pan: Aahcm9517C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rovin Rawal, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Orders Dated 29Th March, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Faridabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Has Not Conducted Any Business Activity During The Relevant Assessment Year. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 10Th September, 2015 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.1,64,750/-. The Ao, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Noted That The Assessee Company Has Received Rs.42 Lakhs As Share Premium During The Year On Issue Of 60000 Shares At A Premium Of Rs.70/-. He Noticed That The Shares Have Been Allotted On 31St March, 2015 To The Following Companies/Persons:- Name Of Person, No. Of Nominal Premium Amount Of Total Amt. Paid Shares Value Per Per Premium(Rs.) Including Share(Rs.) Share(Rs.) Premium(Rs.) Gangashiv 33125 10 70 2318750 2650000 Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 26875 10 70 1881250 2150000 Amar Shree Industries Pvt. Ltd. Total 60000 4200000 4800000

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rovin Rawal, Addl.CIT
Section 11USection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…the ingredients of section 68 of the IT Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540, McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 and 2 Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 802, the AO made addition of Rs.48 lakhs to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT Act. While doing so, the AO further observed that since the addition on account of share premium and share capital has already been made u/s 68 of the Act, no separate addition is being made u/s 56(2)(viib) of th…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

…ounterfeit transaction entered into for ulterior motive where the apparent is not real. Thereafter, she referred to the celebrated decision of the honorable Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad More [82 ITR 540], Sumati Dayal [214 ITR 801] and McDowell & Co [154 ITR 148] and held that the option price is not a liability and has been wrongly treated so by the appellant in its books. Such a treatment is obviously a colorable device to escape tax liability and hoodwink the tax authorities. According to her, the option price is in fact, in the nature of recurring income that melds with the business of the appellant…

ACIT, Central Circle, Bikaner vs. M/S. Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Bikaner

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 482/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

Section 131

…assessee. In this connection decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of UOI Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. UOI 341 ITR 1 may be referred which have distinguished the decision of McDowells & Co. vs. CTO 154 ITR 148. 4. It is submitted that the determination of income of Rs. 2,43,59,629/- made by the AO is hypothetical by assuming that assessee has sold 2236.50 quintals of Gwar on 13.02.2012 @ Rs. 14,000/- per quintal. There is no basis 10 ITA 482/Jodh/2018 ACIT Vs M/s Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar. how the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per quintal has been adopted when o…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…(iii) is concerned and in passing the impugned order on that basis. The learned Tribunal as well as the High Court, therefore, ought not to have interfered with the said conclusion. 4.3 It is pointed out in McDowell & Co, Ltd. V. Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148, the Supreme Court held that it is up to the Court to take stock to determine the nature of the new and sophisticated legal devices to avoid tax and consider the situation created b the devices could be related to the existing legislation with the aid of 'emerging' techniques of interpretation and where it was held the technique was colorable and…

Essar Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, additional ground No

ITA 1942/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43BSection 92BSection 92C(2)

…dated 22.12.2014, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has elaborately dealt with the ratios of the decisions in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. versus Union of India,[2012] 341 ITR 1 (SC), McDowell and Co. Ltd. versus Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) and Union of India versus Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), and also 11 M/s. Aaradhana Realities Ltd. (formerly known as Essar Investments Ltd.) dealt with the principles laid down in the case of IRC v. Duke of Westminster,[1936 AC 1 (HL)], Ramsay [(1981) 1 All ER 865 (HL)] Furniss v. Dawson [(1984) 1 All ER 530 (HL)], Craven v.…

Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6962/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…red to the ITAT Delhi Bench decision in the case of Harsh Win Chadha Vs. DCIT (ITA Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005). He also mentioned the following case laws : • Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) • Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) • Mc.Dowell & Co. Limited (154 ITR 148) • ACIT Vs. Som Nath Mani (100 TTJ 917) • Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (34 ITR 807) • Sreelekha Banerjiee & Others Vs. CIT (49 ITR 112) • Kalekhan Mohameed Hanif Vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) • CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (160 ITR 674) • CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (291 ITR 278) 8. Thereafter he referred to Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of…

Kalpna Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6519/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…red to the ITAT Delhi Bench decision in the case of Harsh Win Chadha Vs. DCIT (ITA Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005). He also mentioned the following case laws : • Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) • Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) • Mc.Dowell & Co. Limited (154 ITR 148) • ACIT Vs. Som Nath Mani (100 TTJ 917) • Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (34 ITR 807) • Sreelekha Banerjiee & Others Vs. CIT (49 ITR 112) • Kalekhan Mohameed Hanif Vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) • CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (160 ITR 674) • CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (291 ITR 278) 8. Thereafter he referred to Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of…

Pallavi Pandey, Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC) 2(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals hereinabove are partly allowed

ITA 7124/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Anil Shathe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…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. Following case laws where law is expounded in this regard, support the action of AO:- (i) McDowell's 154 ITR 148(SC) - in so far the 'corporate veil' needed to be lifted in such cases to distinguish "apparent" from "real". All documents placed at the time of 143(3) assessment are farce and principle of Essence of Colourable Device has to be applied. (ii) ITO vs Purshottam Das Bangur 90 Taxmann.com 541 (SC) - wherein it was propounded by Hon'ble SC that info…