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

Lalita Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 Appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 7911/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Anil Kumar Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-16(1), Pot No. 54-55, Pkt G-30, New Delhi Sector-3, Rohini Delhi – 110085 (Pan: Aaipg7129E) [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. PiyushFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…,457/- was deemed as income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act, over and above, the income already declared in ITR during AY 2014-15. 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 is 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 case laws…

Yogesh Gupta & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 Appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 7910/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Anil Kumar Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-16(1), Pot No. 54-55, Pkt G-30, New Delhi Sector-3, Rohini Delhi – 110085 (Pan: Aaipg7129E) [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. PiyushFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…,457/- was deemed as income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act, over and above, the income already declared in ITR during AY 2014-15. 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 is 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 case laws…

Rajesh Bohra (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-28(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 Appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 7317/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Anil Kumar Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-16(1), Pot No. 54-55, Pkt G-30, New Delhi Sector-3, Rohini Delhi – 110085 (Pan: Aaipg7129E) [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. PiyushFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…,457/- was deemed as income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act, over and above, the income already declared in ITR during AY 2014-15. 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 is 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 case laws…

Anil Kumar Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 Appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 5183/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Anil Kumar Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-16(1), Pot No. 54-55, Pkt G-30, New Delhi Sector-3, Rohini Delhi – 110085 (Pan: Aaipg7129E) [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. PiyushFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…,457/- was deemed as income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act, over and above, the income already declared in ITR during AY 2014-15. 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 is 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 case laws…

M/S Yenepoya Resins & Chemicals vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/85/2010HC Karnataka08 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 80Section 80H

…ther been held that where the borrowing is illusory or colourable, the interest paid on such borrowings is not allowable. Reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MC DWELL & CO. LTD. VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER’ (1985) 154 ITR 148. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, in paragraph 6.2 has held that the assessee firm has supplied its finished products to its sister concern for which it has not insisted for the sale proceeds and has availed letter of credit against the bills and paid interest. This arrangement, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered as busin…

Shamrock Infosys Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 10/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

…the transaction was a sham transaction. There is no payment of license fees / rent. Assessment year: 2015-16 Page 4 of 5 There is only a payment of Fit Out charges for lease of furniture. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell & Co Ltd v CIT (1985) 154 ITR 148 has held that tax planning is legal provided its within the framework of taw. The leave and license agreement entered into by the assesses with M/s Guideline Property Solutions LLP and the claim of rent for sub letting charges debited in the books of, accounts is a colourable device / document furnished by assessee which cannot be part of tax pla…

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1292/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. and Shri V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…en entered into by the assessee can at the best be termed as tax planning, but in no way it can be opined as tax evasion. Tax planning is permissible. Reliance for the purpose was placed upon M/s. McDowell and Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, (1985) 154 ITR 148 and Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andotan(2003) 263 ITR 706." Besides the above relevant para in the judgement there are two Paras extracted from Apex Court decision in- SA Builders Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and another (2007) 288 ITR 1, wherein the Hon'ble S.C. had agreed per decision of jurisdictional Delhi H.Court(CIT V.…

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3572/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. and Shri V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…en entered into by the assessee can at the best be termed as tax planning, but in no way it can be opined as tax evasion. Tax planning is permissible. Reliance for the purpose was placed upon M/s. McDowell and Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, (1985) 154 ITR 148 and Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andotan(2003) 263 ITR 706." Besides the above relevant para in the judgement there are two Paras extracted from Apex Court decision in- SA Builders Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and another (2007) 288 ITR 1, wherein the Hon'ble S.C. had agreed per decision of jurisdictional Delhi H.Court(CIT V.…

Manvi Khandelwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3212/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 68

…g details such as bank account/documents, and the assessee failed to furnish the source for the purchase transactions - such a transaction is against human possibility. The Tribunal applied the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co Ltd., 154 ITR 148 of the Act to reach a conclusion that the transaction, meticulously planned and framed, is without the framework of law and a colourable device, which cannot be part of tax planning and it would be wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honourable to avoid the payment of tax by dubious methods. 24. The findings of the Tribunal are…

Shree Shankar Sarees, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2751/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra, DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…unal Gems has clearly admitted to have provided bogus entries and earned commission @0.15% of such accommodation entries and therefore the requirement of Section 68 is more than fulfilled. The ld. DR relied on the decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd v. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (ITA No. 53/2005, 56/2005, 305/2006) of Delhi High Court. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record. At this moment, we discuss the case laws relied on by the ld. DR. In the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd (supra), the issue was tax avoidance and the Hon’bl…

Shree Shankar Sarees, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2750/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra, DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…unal Gems has clearly admitted to have provided bogus entries and earned commission @0.15% of such accommodation entries and therefore the requirement of Section 68 is more than fulfilled. The ld. DR relied on the decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd v. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (ITA No. 53/2005, 56/2005, 305/2006) of Delhi High Court. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record. At this moment, we discuss the case laws relied on by the ld. DR. In the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd (supra), the issue was tax avoidance and the Hon’bl…

M/S. Bayer Vapi Private Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries P. Ltd.), Vapi vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi

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

ITA 1769/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.2886/Ahd/2010, 794/Ahd/2014 & 1769/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 बनाम M/S. Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Addl. Cit Range- ( Now Known As M/S. Bayer Vapi Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Private Limited) 306/3,Phase-Ii Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyer - Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O. P. Singh Cit (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 26.09.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Three Appeals For The Assessment Year 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Dated 28.07.2010 & Dated 15.01.2014 Respectively Under The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] On The Direction Of Drp By The Addl. Cit Range-Vapi Range Vapi (Herein After Referred As The Ao) & The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Dated 29.04.2016. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed As Under: It(Tp)A No.2886/Ahd/2010/A.Y. 2006-07/ By The Assessee: 2. Ground Nos.1 Is General In Nature & Do Not Require Adjudication.

For Appellant: 2. Ground Nos.1 is general in nature and do not require adjudication
Section 143(3)

…2009-10 & 2011-2 14. In the draft assessment order, the AO proposed to include the Excise duty, sales tax, insurance and freight in the total turnover for the purpose of working out deduction under section 10 B by relying on the decision of Mc Dowel Co. Ltd. 154 ITR 148 (SC) wherein it was held that sales tax and excise duty are part of trading receipts. The AO further observed that the ratio in the case of CIT V. Sudarshan Chemicals [2002] 245 ITR 769 (SC) relied by the assessee will be applicable in the case of assessee pertaining to assessment year prior to assessment year 1999-2000. As per the provisions of…

ITO 12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Krish Micro System Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6132/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Income-Tax Officer Vs M/S Krish Micro System Pvt Ltd Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai 204, Spring Leaf Chsl, Lokhandwala, Kandivali (E) Mumbai400 101 Pan : Aacck6090R Appellant Respondednt

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). (ix) The purchases from hawala operator falls within the ambit of the term 'colorable devices' and the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed ITA 6132/Mum/2018 Krish Micro System Pvt Ltd in the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. Vs. CTO 154 ITR 148 that "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 resorting to dubious method. It is obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to…

Shri Puneet Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1569/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Suleka Verma, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1569/DEL/2012 [A.Y 2008-09] Shri Puneet Jain Vs. The Income tax Officer S/o Shri Praveen Kumar Jain Ward 2(1) Prop. M/s Paras Paper Center Meerut 517/2, Mahavirji Nagar, Meerut PAN: AANPJ 4604 J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampat, Adv Shri V. Raja Kumar, Adv Department By : Smt. Suleka Verma, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 19.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27 .09.2019 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, With thi…

Adani Agro Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

ITA 1809/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Parin ShahFor Respondent: 17.09.2019
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234C

…ng of the AO, which was later confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), that assessee has used this transaction as a colorable device to reduce its future tax liability and heavily relied on Honorable Supreme court in case of McDowell & Co. Ltd vs. Commercial tax officer (154 ITR 148) dated 17-4-1985 wherein apex court observed that tax planning within the law is permitted, but colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning. 11.1 In the case of McDowell & Co, the assessee was not collecting the sales tax liability on the excise duty even after the amendment in the distillery rules 76 & 79 w.e.f. 4-8-1981. As such before the…

Shri Ramachandran Ananthan Pothi, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1088/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood (JM) I.T.A. No. 1088/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Ramchandran ACIT – 24(3) Vs. Ananthan Pothi Room No. 413 513, Laxmi Plaza 6th Floor Laxmi Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers Andheri West Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai- 400 053. Mumbai-400 012. PAN : AACPP8620K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Naresh Jain & Ms. Arati Debnath Department by Shri D.G. Pansari Date of Hearing 18.6.2019 Date of Pronouncement 11.9.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Anil Aggarwal, New Delhi

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

ITA 4668/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Samar Bhadra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 134(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 6Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

…shift the huge profits and capital gains earned from India companies and their share holders to the overseas companies. While doing so, the Assessing Officer relied on the ratio of the various judicial pronouncements, predominantly, like MC Dowell & Co. Ltd. [154 ITR 148 SC (1985)]. I have gone through the citations of case laws relied upon by the Assessing Officer and find that the facts of those cases are distinguishable to that of the appellant. On perusal, I find that the Assessing Officer misapplied the ratio of the judgement of MC Dowell & Co. Ltd. to the appellant’s case, as the Assessing Officer did not e…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Anil Aggarwal, New Delhi

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

ITA 4665/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Samar Bhadra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 134(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 6Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

…shift the huge profits and capital gains earned from India companies and their share holders to the overseas companies. While doing so, the Assessing Officer relied on the ratio of the various judicial pronouncements, predominantly, like MC Dowell & Co. Ltd. [154 ITR 148 SC (1985)]. I have gone through the citations of case laws relied upon by the Assessing Officer and find that the facts of those cases are distinguishable to that of the appellant. On perusal, I find that the Assessing Officer misapplied the ratio of the judgement of MC Dowell & Co. Ltd. to the appellant’s case, as the Assessing Officer did not e…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Anil Aggarwal, New Delhi

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

ITA 4664/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Samar Bhadra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 134(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 6Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

…shift the huge profits and capital gains earned from India companies and their share holders to the overseas companies. While doing so, the Assessing Officer relied on the ratio of the various judicial pronouncements, predominantly, like MC Dowell & Co. Ltd. [154 ITR 148 SC (1985)]. I have gone through the citations of case laws relied upon by the Assessing Officer and find that the facts of those cases are distinguishable to that of the appellant. On perusal, I find that the Assessing Officer misapplied the ratio of the judgement of MC Dowell & Co. Ltd. to the appellant’s case, as the Assessing Officer did not e…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Anil Aggarwal, New Delhi

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

ITA 4663/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Samar Bhadra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 134(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 6Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

…shift the huge profits and capital gains earned from India companies and their share holders to the overseas companies. While doing so, the Assessing Officer relied on the ratio of the various judicial pronouncements, predominantly, like MC Dowell & Co. Ltd. [154 ITR 148 SC (1985)]. I have gone through the citations of case laws relied upon by the Assessing Officer and find that the facts of those cases are distinguishable to that of the appellant. On perusal, I find that the Assessing Officer misapplied the ratio of the judgement of MC Dowell & Co. Ltd. to the appellant’s case, as the Assessing Officer did not e…