McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO

Akshay Jain, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

…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…

Bhim Sain Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Bhim Sain Jain, Vs. Ito, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward-1(2), F-26/124, Sector-7, Faridabad. Rohini. Pan: Abupj6954B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th June, 2018 Of The Cit(A), Faridabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.23,70,761/- Made By The Assessing Officer Treating The Long-Term Capital Gain Arising From Sale Of Shares As Income From Undisclosed Sources U/S 68 Of The It Act, 1961. 3. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.17,85,350/-. The Assessee Derives Income From A Proprietary Concern M/S Gomti Food Products.

…conformity with SEBI Guidelines and the payments for purchase was made in cash and the assessee was not a regular investor in shares, the Assessing Officer, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) and various other decisions held that the transactions are sham transactions and made only to bring unaccounted money in the guise of exempted long-term capital gain and paper work has been done merely to give a colour of authenticity to the transactions and by creating a façade of legitimate transactions. The Assessing Officer, therefore…

Anju Rastogi, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

…He further stated that the case laws relied upon by the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) may be read as his arguments including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT and in the case of Mc Dowell and Company Limited, 154 ITR 148. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order. I note that the assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 22,28,172/- earned during the FY 2014-15 and exempt u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee was asked to explain the source of aforesaid Long Term Capital Gain during the c…

Anip Rastogi, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

…He further stated that the case laws relied upon by the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) may be read as his arguments including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT and in the case of Mc Dowell and Company Limited, 154 ITR 148. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order. I note that the assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 22,28,172/- earned during the FY 2014-15 and exempt u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee was asked to explain the source of aforesaid Long Term Capital Gain during the c…

Udit Kalra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 50(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

…ansactions are against human probability. He further stated that the case laws relied upon by the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) may be read as his arguments including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mc Dowell and Company Limited, 154 ITR 148. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order. I find that the assessee is an individual and the amount of cash credit Rs. 27,68,457/-. However, on perusing the assessment order, I find that there was a specific information that assessee has indulged in non-genuine and bogus capital gain obtained from t…

M/S Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2006-07 Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Unit 401-404, 4Th Floor, Circle-6(1), Copia Corporate Suites, New Delhi. Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadcm8454G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26Th October, 2010 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The It Act Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Nos.1,2,3 & 16 Being General In Nature Are Dismissed. 3. Grounds Of Appeal No.4,5,6 & 12 Which Relate To Disallowance Of Technical Fee

…w it benefitted wholly from such brand building. Therefore, it is a concocted arrangement to lower its profit and save on the expenditure of the AE. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. vs. CTO reported in 154 ITR 148 (SC), the Assessing Officer disallowed 50% of such expenses amounting to Rs.79,24,007/- towards brand building for the entity shown in the brand. The assessee approached the DRP but without any success. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, made this disallowance. 29. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 30. The ld. counsel…

M/S. Kisaan Steels (P) Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 3707/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Kisaan Steels (P) Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income B-12, B.S. Road, Industrial Area, Tax, Circle-1, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack5948C Assessee By : Sh. Akshit Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.04.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

…re, made the disallowance of Rs.10,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A reference was made to the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme court: " Sumati Dayal Vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) " McDowell and Co. Vs CIT 154 ITR 148 (SC) " Cochin State Power & Light Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Kerala [AIR 1965 SC 1688, 1691] " Vinod Krishna Kaul Vs Union of India [JT 1995 (9) SC 205, 208] 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: “It is respectfully submitted that the assessee company has opening balance of sum borrowed fr…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…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 watered down the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in erstwhile case of Mc. 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 as under: “In our judgment, from Westminster‟s case [1936] AC 1 (HL) ; 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad‟s case [1940] 8 ITR 522 (PC) to Mathuram‟s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell‟s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same.…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…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 watered down the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in erstwhile case of Mc. 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 as under: “In our judgment, from Westminster‟s case [1936] AC 1 (HL) ; 19 TC 490 to Bank of Chettinad‟s case [1940] 8 ITR 522 (PC) to Mathuram‟s case [1999] 8 SCC 667, despite the hiccups of McDowell‟s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), the law has remained the same.…