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 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 148 Section 147 Section 68 Section 69C Section 133A Section 132(4)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

colourable device azadi bachao andolan live link entry operator penny stock section 10(38)genuineness of the transaction long term capital gains addition u/s 68 share application money accommodation entry section 131

Judgments citing McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO

Shri. Rajendra Chaturvedi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals hereinabove are partly allowed

ITA 7581/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…

Essar House Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Cir) 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1930/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Essar House Ltd., Asst Cit (Cir) 6(2)(2), Essar House, R.No.504, 5Th Floor, 11 K.K. Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 034 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacj2883P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Various Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Cit (A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Interest Amount Payable Towards Defeasance Of Sales Tax Liability Amounting To Rs.226,07,45,800. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Interest Liability Cannot Be Treated As Expenditure Incurred For The Purpose Of Earning Or Making Income By Way Of Discounting Charges On The Zero Coupon Bonds (Zcbs) & Consequently , The Same Is Not Eligible For Deduction U/S 57(Iii) Of The Act Against The Income By Way Of Discounting Charges On Zcbs. 3. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Transaction Is Not A Bonafide In Nature & Interest Liability Was Arisen From Adoption Of A Colorable Device By The Appellant For Avoidance Of Tax.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 57

…regarded and not given effect to for computing the total income and tax liability of the appellant for the year under consideration. 61. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowe// & Co. Ltd. Vs. CTO 154 ITR 148, wherein it was held 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 payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that it is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges an…

M/S Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2240/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kannan Narayanan, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…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…

M/S Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2239/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kannan Narayanan, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Hyderabad vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Shrilekha Financial Services Initially and Subsequebtly M/S Shrilekha Business Consultancy ), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1041/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy Ward – 4(5) Pvt. Ltd., (Pan No.Aaycs0021L) Hyderabad (Formerly M/S. Shrilekha Financial Services Initially & Subsequently M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy, Both Are With Pan:Aacfs9088A 3-6-478, Iv Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayath Nagar Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. Aacfs9088A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 45(3)Section 56

…without adequate consideration (Para 3.33 of the assessment order). (vii) The modus operandi adopted by the assessee is a convoluted tax planning and a colourable device to avoid tax liability. Relied upon the SC decision in the case of Mc Dowell and Co Ltd (154 ITR 148) (Para 3.23 of the assessment order) . (viii) Even though PEL confirmed their contribution to the firm as investment as recorded in their books of account along with a copy of their investment account, AO held it as factually incorrect referring to their Board resolution dated 1.4.2014 (Para 3.35 & 3.36 of the assessment order). (ix) The consid…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Hyderabad vs. Shrilekha Financial Services (Presently Known As M/S Shrilekha Business Consultancy), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1371/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 45(3)Section 56

Smt.Sunitha S.Bathija, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assesee stands allowed

ITA 668/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 50C

…rring to DVO report, came to the conclusion that, real intention of assessee was to adopt a colourable device to avoid tax in guise of transfer of shares. Ld.CIT(A) relied upon decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co Ltd vs CTO reported in 154 ITR 148 and Union of India vs Azadi the Bachao Andolan reported in (2003) 132 taxman 373. Ld.CIT (A), thus, based on DVO report upheld capital gains computed in accordance with value adopted by DVO. 8. Aggrieved by order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 9. At the outset, Ld.AR submitted that, provisions of section 50C is not applicable…

Ramesh Chander Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 53(5), New Delhi

ITA 161/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh Dahiya, Sr. D.R

Section 54ESection 54F

…has established the transaction as 13 ITA.No.161/Del./2020 Smt. Savita Bhasin L.R. of (wife) Shri Ramesh Chander Bhasin, New Delhi. ‘sham’ holding that assessee has adopted a colourable device to avoid the tax as is held in the case of Mc. Dowells & Co. Ltd., 154 ITR 148. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon Order of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of ITO vs., Ms. Apsara Bhavana Sai in ITA.No.557/Hyd/2012, Dated 13.09.2013 and reproduced the Order. The Ld. CIT(A) in view of the back ground of the circumstances of the case, confirmed the disallowance under section 54F of the I.T. Act. The decision of the Ld. CIT(A) i…

Hespera Realty P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 764/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 94(7)

…t is treated as a binding statutory scheme because the scheme has to be implemented and enforced. This cannot, or is not, a ground to escape tax on transfer of a Capital Asset under and as per provisions of the Act." (ii) McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 wherein it has been held clearly that the taxpayer cannot be allowed to get away with any colourable device or artificial sham transaction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while applying the doctrine, had observed- 10 Hespera Realty Pvt. Ltd. "Tax planning is legitimate provided it is within the frame work of law. Colourable devices cannot be part o…

Shiv Raj Gupta vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi IV

C.A. No.-012044-012044 - 2016Supreme Court22 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…ge amount of INR 6.6 crores was being paid. It was also found that there was no penalty clause to enforce the performance of obligations under the aforesaid Deed of Covenant, as a result of which, applying the judgment in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1985) 3 SCC 230, the Deed of Covenant was held to be a colourable device to evade tax that is payable under Section 28(ii)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As a result thereof, this amount was then brought to tax under the aforesaid provision. 7. An appeal from the Assessing Officer to the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed. When it cam…

Kundan Rice Mills Limited, Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat Circle, Panipat

In the result, Ground No.1 of the appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 853/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Uditi Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…reme Court in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India vs., Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd., (supra) and referred to many of the paras from the Judgment. The Ld. D.R. also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd., 154 ITR 148 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs., Commissioner of Income Tax 214 ITR 801 (SC) on the proposition that “if test of human probability is applied in the case of assessee, it would clearly make-out a case that assessee did not suffer genuine business loss.” The Ld. D.R, therefore, submitted…

Shri Uttung Hitendra Thakur, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1746/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Uttung Hitendra Income Tax Officer, Thakur, Ward 4(5), 1St Floor, Thakur Arcade, Thane, Station Road, Vs. Room No.8, ‘A’ Wing, Virar (West) – 401 303 6Th Floor, Pan: Ajjpt3513H Ashar It Park, Road No.16Z, Midc, Thane (W) – 400 604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…being manipulated without any financial fundamentals. Both the authorities have quoted the general modus operandi and catena of judgment including that of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 and Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd., 154 ITR 148. 11. From the perusal of the entire assessment and appellate order nowhere there is any discussion or whisper that there is any material or information with the Department that assessee’s name has appeared as a beneficiary of accommodation entry in any kind of inquiry or investigation conducted by the Department or assessee has routed his unaccou…

Manoj Shivyag Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(1), Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 5375/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmanmanoj Shivyag Singh Dcit Central Circle- 5(1) Babubhai Gaikwad Compound, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Trikam Das Road, Kandivali Vs. (West), Mumbai-40067. Pan: Asjps4147D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.G. Ginde With Kumar Kala (Ar) Respondent By : Miss Sumantha Mullamudi (Sr.Dr)

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde with Kumar KalaFor Respondent: Miss Sumantha Mullamudi (Sr.DR)

Section 250Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…e claim in Amber Agency by taking view that the assessee has substantial interest in MLPL and the assessee developed camouflage device. The assessing officer while disallowing the claim of assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in McDowell (154 ITR 148 SC). On appeal before first 3 ITA No. 5375 Mum 2016-Manoj Shivyag Singh appellate authority / learned CIT(A), the action of the assessing officer on both the claims was confirmed. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(A) the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard the submissions of the learned authori…

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 140/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019

Section 250(6)

…f assets without any alternation in the situation of assets and its working, the denial of depreciation claimed has to be considered keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of McDowel & Co. Ltd. (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126 : (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). 2. It has come to the notice of the Board that the new Accounting Standard on ‘Leases’ issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India require capitalization of the asset by the lessees in financial lease transaction. By itself, the accounting standard will have no implication on the allowance of depreciation on assets under the p…

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 139/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019

Section 250(6)

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 547/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019

Section 250(6)

Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 40, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 7189/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7189/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5234/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

…1 M/s Anik Industries Ltd. Assessment Years-2010-11 & 2012-13 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ऐ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7189/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/s. Anik Industries Ltd. DCIT-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACM-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5234/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष"…

Bhagwatiben Vinodkumar Surani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(1)., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1309/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

…his undisclosed income under the garb of capital gains, income from which is exempt income. This is nothing but a colorful device adopted to avoid payment of tax which is not permissible as per law, in view of the decision of the MC Dowell & Co. Ltd. Vs. CTO 154 ITR 148 (SC). The Hon. Supreme Court has held that "the taxing authority is entitled and is indeed bound to determine the true legal relation resulting from transaction. If the parties have chosen to conceal by a device the legal relation, it is open to the taxing authorities to unravel the device and to determine the true character of the relationship.…

Hirabai Bhausaheb Katore, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA 2844/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2844/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hirabai Bhausaheb Katore, Nimgaon Korhale, Taluka- Rahata, Ahmednagar-423 109. Pan : Csgpk1457F .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri B. B. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.2844/PUN/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hirabai Bhausaheb Katore, Nimgaon Korhale, Taluka- Rahata, Ahmednagar-423 109. PAN : CSGPK1457F .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri B. B. Mane Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Garg सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 12.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 1…

Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2177/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas, D.R &

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…. (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) and the Ld. A.R. also referred to Vodafone International Holdings vs. UOI (2012) 341 ITR 1 SC wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the correct interpretation of Mc Dowell & Company Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148 SC that legitimate tax planning can not be considered as sham. The Ld. A.R. also relied on a series of other decisions namely; i) CIT vs. Hede Consultancy Co. (P.) Ltd. (2015) 231 Taxman 421 (Bom)(HC) ii) Coromandel Cables Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 71 taxmann.com 346 (Chennai) (Trib.) iii) CIT vs. Mehta (P) Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxman 104 (Bom) (HC)/ (2008…