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

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

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

ITA 4662/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

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 4667/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

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 4666/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

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…

Smt.Bhavna Chheda, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(5), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4778/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 68

…k an advantage of an artificially created market situation to exploit and avoid taxation. (ix) A reference may gainfully be made to the following judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] reported in 154 ITR 148, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held and observed as under: "Tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honorable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of ITA. Nos…

Smt. Heena Chheda, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4777/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 68

…k an advantage of an artificially created market situation to exploit and avoid taxation. (ix) A reference may gainfully be made to the following judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] reported in 154 ITR 148, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held and observed as under: "Tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honorable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of ITA. Nos…

Shri Manoj Chheda, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4776/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 68

…k an advantage of an artificially created market situation to exploit and avoid taxation. (ix) A reference may gainfully be made to the following judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] reported in 154 ITR 148, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held and observed as under: "Tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honorable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of ITA. Nos…

Income Tax Officer-11(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4929/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Satyanathan Raju (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…tio of decision of following case laws , as detailed hereunder:- (1) CIT v. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 . (2) Sumati Dayal v.CIT 214 ITR 801 (3) Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC). (4) Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., 63 ITR 609 (SC) (5) McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148 (SC) (6) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (7) Chuharmal vs. CIT (1998) 172 ITR 250/ 38 Taxman 190 (8) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (9) Nikunj Eximp In ITA no. 5604 of 2010 (Bombay High Court); (10) Balaji Textiles 49 ITD 177 (Bom) (11) Rajeev G. Kalathil in ITA no. 6727/Mum/2012 and CO no. 06/Mum/2014 (12)…

Ispat Energy Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 2399/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2011-12 Ispat Energy Ltd., The Acit Circle 3(2), The Enclave, 5Th Floor, Mumbai Vs. New Prabhadevi Road, Phabhadevi, Mumbai 400 013. Pan Aaaci4970M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rakesh Joshi & Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: S/Shri Awangshi Ginson &
Section 28Section 41(1)

…ess. 14. Looking to the facts of the case, the entire exercise appears to be a mechanism to avoid incidence of tax and therefore appears to be a colourable device as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Me Dowell & Me Dowell Co Ltd as reported in 154 ITR 148. Thus, the entire expenses of Rs 296-09 crores in itself appears to be suspect. Moreover, such expenditure is certainly not capital in nature and the assessee could not have adjusted the amount of Rs 296-19 crores against the same. 15. In the case of Mayajal Entertainment Ltd (ITA No 1216/Mds/2011), the Hon’ble ITAT, Chennai upheld the decision…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Mr. Francis Wacziarg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4728/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs Francis Wacziarg, Circle-11(1), A-58, Nizamuddin East, Cr Building, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaepw9332M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, S/Shri Rishabh Jain, Manoj Piyush & Hardik Arora, Cas Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th June, 2012 Of The Cit(A)-13, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary, Business & Other Sources. He Filed His Return Of Income On 12Th October, 2007 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.73,06,002/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Reopened The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

…which the transaction took place. Without prejudice to the above the entire exercise was carried out to evade taxes, which is not permissible in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of McDowell and Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC).otherwise also, if assessee that this painting is so valuable , he should have shown this in his balance sheet, just like other items generally shown like agricultural land etc. In view of above facts, the profit derived on account of sale of painting is being treated as profit under adventure in nature of trade. The profit is worked out, as…

M/S Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, Both the C

ITA 84/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

…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…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Cae Flight Training Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, Both the C

ITA 63/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

…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…

Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-23(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4604/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4604/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Ward-23(2), Part-2, New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aamcs0742A Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150(1)Section 68

…68 (Delhi); (2014 206 DLT 97 (DB) " Meenakshi Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 609 " Littlewoods Mail Order Stores [1970] 75 ITR 327 (CA) " Juggilalkamlapat [1969] 73 ITR 702, 710 (SC) " W.T. Ramsay Ltd. Vs. IRC [1981] 2 WLR 449 " McDowell and Co. Ltd. Vs. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 " Workmen Vs. Associated Rubber Industry [1986] 157 ITR 77 5 Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd. 4. The authorities specifically relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) wherein it was held that, when there was failure of assessee to establish credit worthiness of inves…

Ms.Kantaben Bhogilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-21(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1937/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ms. Kantaben Bhogilal Vs Ito-21(2)(1), Mumbai Kubadia, 801, Sun Shine Heights, 243, P.L. Kale Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-22 Pan : Aadpk8166G Appellant Respondednt

Section 10(38)Section 68

…at transactions in such penny stock could not be held as genuine transactions. 7.5 On the basis of above mentioned discussion, I find the reliance of the AO on the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court is in order. (i) McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 148/22 Taxman 11. (ii) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Playworld Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. (1990) 184 ITR 308 (SC) (iii) Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. v. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 77 (SC), (iv) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 7.6 Apart from that in Mid East Port Folio Management Ltd. Vs. CIT (2003) 81 TTJ (Mu…

Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3462/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…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…

Aura Securities Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…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…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda

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

ITA 1659/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Panday, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

…later confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), that assessee has used this transaction as a colorable device to reduce its tax liability by diverting the income. Regarding this we note that 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. 18.10. 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…

Sanat Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle - 36(1), New Delhi

ITA 1881/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Senior DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 133Section 68Section 6A

…t is essential on the part of the Assessing Officer to look into the real nature of transaction and what happens in the real word and contextualize the same to such transactions in the real market situation. Further, in the case of McDowell &: Co. Ltd.[(1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC)],the Hon'ble Supreme Court have observed as under: "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 methods. It is the obligation of every…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Dr. Prannoy Roy, New Delhi

ITA 2707/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2019, 2020/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11) Radhika Roy, Vs. DCIT, C/o. RKACA & Associates LLP, Circle-18(1), CA, E-186, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAHPR6038G (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Vs. Radhika Roy, Circle-18(1), C/o. RKACA & Associates New Delhi LLP, CA, E-186, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi PAN: AAHPR6038G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 2021, 2022/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) Dr. Prannoy Roy, Vs. DC…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Mrs. Radhika Roy, New Delhi

ITA 2706/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2019, 2020/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11) Radhika Roy, Vs. DCIT, C/o. RKACA & Associates LLP, Circle-18(1), CA, E-186, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAHPR6038G (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Vs. Radhika Roy, Circle-18(1), C/o. RKACA & Associates New Delhi LLP, CA, E-186, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi PAN: AAHPR6038G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 2021, 2022/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) Dr. Prannoy Roy, Vs. DC…

Dr. Prannoy Roy, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2022/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2019, 2020/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11) Radhika Roy, Vs. DCIT, C/o. RKACA & Associates LLP, Circle-18(1), CA, E-186, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAHPR6038G (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Vs. Radhika Roy, Circle-18(1), C/o. RKACA & Associates New Delhi LLP, CA, E-186, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi PAN: AAHPR6038G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 2021, 2022/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) Dr. Prannoy Roy, Vs. DC…