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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Angel Infrastructure Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 761/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…m ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 55 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT time to time by the Hon'ble High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the various decisions including the decision in the case of Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 154 ITR 148 (SC) as well as in the case of Union of India Vs. Aazadi Bachao Andolan (Supra). Thus, the legitimate tax planning within the framework of law is permissible. If we analyse the present matter in the light of the settled legal propositions, we find that the transfer of shares by the assessee was actual and real transaction as evident from the re…

M/S Angel Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 464/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…m ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 55 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT time to time by the Hon'ble High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the various decisions including the decision in the case of Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 154 ITR 148 (SC) as well as in the case of Union of India Vs. Aazadi Bachao Andolan (Supra). Thus, the legitimate tax planning within the framework of law is permissible. If we analyse the present matter in the light of the settled legal propositions, we find that the transfer of shares by the assessee was actual and real transaction as evident from the re…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Railtel Corporation of India Ltd., Delhi

ITA 2743/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goel, CIT (DR)
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 80I

…Fit for Publication (AM) (JM) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 2743/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s Railtel Corporation of Circle-21(1), Vs. India Ltd., 6th Floor, IIIrd Block, New Delhi. Delhi Technology Park, Shastri Park, Delhi-110053. PAN No: AABCR7176C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Goel, CIT (DR) Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Mittal, CA ORDER PER: ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM This appeal by Revenue has been directed against th…

Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari, Indore vs. The ITO-4(1), Indore

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

ITA 252/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

…was evading/ avoiding incidence of tax by bringing unaccounted cash needed for investment in the form of income attracting lower rate of tax. In the result, the AO's action is fully supported by the Apex Court’s judgment In the case of McDowell v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) and the appellant's case can not derived any benefit from the series of judgments like Arvind Narottamdas v. CWT (1988) 173 ITR 479 (SC)] and Union of India v Playworld Electronics P. Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 1308(SC) in view of detailed discussion below. So far as the rule in McDowell & Co. Ltd v Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) is…

Shri Pradeep Maheshwari HUF, Indore vs. The ACIT 3(1), Indore

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

ITA 53/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

…was evading/ avoiding incidence of tax by bringing unaccounted cash needed for investment in the form of income attracting lower rate of tax. In the result, the AO's action is fully supported by the Apex Court’s judgment In the case of McDowell v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) and the appellant's case can not derived any benefit from the series of judgments like Arvind Narottamdas v. CWT (1988) 173 ITR 479 (SC)] and Union of India v Playworld Electronics P. Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 1308(SC) in view of detailed discussion below. So far as the rule in McDowell & Co. Ltd v Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) is…

Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari, Indore vs. The ACIT, 4(1), Indore

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

ITA 315/IND/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

…was evading/ avoiding incidence of tax by bringing unaccounted cash needed for investment in the form of income attracting lower rate of tax. In the result, the AO's action is fully supported by the Apex Court’s judgment In the case of McDowell v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) and the appellant's case can not derived any benefit from the series of judgments like Arvind Narottamdas v. CWT (1988) 173 ITR 479 (SC)] and Union of India v Playworld Electronics P. Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 1308(SC) in view of detailed discussion below. So far as the rule in McDowell & Co. Ltd v Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) is…

Dy.C.I.T. 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Rishabh Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Raipur

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

ITA 157/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 165Section 4Section 44A

…terilized. He submitted that the dominant object has to be seen. Relying on various decision he submitted that the order of CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. He also relied on the following decisions :- 1) Mcdowell & Co. (S/C) 154 ITR 148 2) Durga Prasad More Vs.CIT (SC) 82 ITR 540 3) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 4) CIT Vs. Amrit Lal 212 ITR 514 (Bombay) 5) DIT Vs. Bharat Diamond 259 ITR 280 (S/C) 6) ACIT Vs. Concord Communication 95 ITD 117 (SB) 15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT (A). Referring to the copy of th…

ITO, WD-1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Command Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 571/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 571/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Command Constructions Private Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc5075A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Md.Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(3)

…Ltd. -vs- DCIT [2014] 41 taxmann.com 160 (Cochin -Trib.), in aforesaid similar case, held that such transactions would be subjected to capital gains tax. xvii) The ,ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. -Vs- CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148/22 Taxman 11(SC) is applicable in this present case wherein the transactions effected by the assessee are not bonafide or genuine but are sham, make believe, arranged one and are collusive. Hence such transactions should be regarded as hollow and colourable device and are not to be accepted by the tax authorities. 4.3. The ld AO held that the co…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4038/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 23Section 23(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 DCIT, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi PAN :AASPS1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. ACIT, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, ARA Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi PAN :AASPS1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Adv. & S…

Moni Kumar Subba, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3982/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 23Section 23(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 DCIT, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi PAN :AASPS1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. ACIT, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, ARA Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi PAN :AASPS1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Adv. & S…

ACIT Central Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. S.Martin, Coimbatore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3147/CHNY/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2382/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3146 & 3147/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri S. Martin, Income Tax, V. No.335-339, Daisy Plaza, 6Th Street, Gandhipuram, Central Circle -2, Income Tax Building, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 011. Coimbatore – 641 018. Pan : Aewpm 3703 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2382/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3146 & 3147/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner of Shri S. Martin, Income Tax, v. No.335-339, Daisy Plaza, 6th Street, Gandhipuram, Central Circle -2, Income Tax Building, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 011. Coi…

ACIT Central Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. S.Martin, Coimbatore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3146/CHNY/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2382/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3146 & 3147/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri S. Martin, Income Tax, V. No.335-339, Daisy Plaza, 6Th Street, Gandhipuram, Central Circle -2, Income Tax Building, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 011. Coimbatore – 641 018. Pan : Aewpm 3703 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2382/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3146 & 3147/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner of Shri S. Martin, Income Tax, v. No.335-339, Daisy Plaza, 6th Street, Gandhipuram, Central Circle -2, Income Tax Building, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 011. Coi…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Shri S. Martin, Coimbatore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2382/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2382/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3146 & 3147/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri S. Martin, Income Tax, V. No.335-339, Daisy Plaza, 6Th Street, Gandhipuram, Central Circle -2, Income Tax Building, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 011. Coimbatore – 641 018. Pan : Aewpm 3703 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2382/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3146 & 3147/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner of Shri S. Martin, Income Tax, v. No.335-339, Daisy Plaza, 6th Street, Gandhipuram, Central Circle -2, Income Tax Building, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 011. Coi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mek Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2945/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

…y loss arising out of such a speculative transaction can not be set off against the real business profits, which the assessee has done. Colourable Device: 11.0 It has been recognised by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148, in which it has been held that even if the transaction is genuine and even if it is actually acted upon, but if the transaction is entered into with the intention of tax avoidance. then the transaction would constitute a colourable device. That the courts are now concerned, not merely with the genuineness of a transaction, but with the intended…

ITO, WD-1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Orchid Griha Nirman Private Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 569/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 569/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaaco 7148 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Goulean Hangshing, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(3)

…Ltd. -vs- DCIT [2014] 41 taxmann.com 160 (Cochin -Trib.), in aforesaid similar case, held that such transactions would be subjected to capital gains tax. xvii) The ,ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. -Vs- CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148/22 Taxman 11(SC) is applicable in this present case wherein the transactions effected by the assessee are not bonafide or genuine but are sham, make believe, arranged one and are collusive. Hence such transactions should be regarded as hollow and colourable device and are not to be accepted by the tax authorities. 4.3. The ld AO held that the co…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…me Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 122/137 Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL); 19 TC 490, have been exorcised in the country of its origin”. It is also urged that McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) radical departure was in tune with the changed thinking on fiscal jurisprudence by the English courts, as evidenced in W.T. Ramsay Ltd. v. IRC [1982] AC 300, Inland Revenue Commissioner v. Burmah Oil Company Ltd. [1982] Simon’s Tax Cases 30 and Furniss v. Dawson [1984] 1 All ER 530 (HL). As we shall show presently, far from being e…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…me Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 122/137 Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL); 19 TC 490, have been exorcised in the country of its origin”. It is also urged that McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) radical departure was in tune with the changed thinking on fiscal jurisprudence by the English courts, as evidenced in W.T. Ramsay Ltd. v. IRC [1982] AC 300, Inland Revenue Commissioner v. Burmah Oil Company Ltd. [1982] Simon’s Tax Cases 30 and Furniss v. Dawson [1984] 1 All ER 530 (HL). As we shall show presently, far from being e…

Syed Mubarak Ali, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the years are partly allowed

ITA 309/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. L. Natarajan, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Marudhu Pandian, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…tertained. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 and that of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mc Dowell and Co. Ltd vs. Commercial Tax Officer, 154 ITR 148, while confirming the disallowances made for all the impugned assessment years. Nevertheless, for assessment year 2010-11, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee that ITA Nos. 309 to 311 /2017 :- 6 -: purchase from M/s.Amee enterprises was erroneously considered as "3,55…

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Arysta Lifescience India Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 559/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.401/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Arysta Lifescience India Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income [Formerly Known As Devidayal (Sales) Ltd.] Tax Range-6(2) बनाम/ [Cin U51420Mh1949Plc007856] Rom No.563, 5Th Floor Vs. 123-124,12Th Floor, Mittal Chambers Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacd-0557-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.559/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Arysta Lifescience India Limited [Formerly Known As Devidayal (Sales) Ltd.] Tax -3(1)(1) बनाम/ [Cin U51420Mh1949Plc007856] Rom No.607, 6Th Floor Vs. 123-124,12Th Floor, Mittal Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacd-0557-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Dhinal Shah & Shalibhadra Shah, Ld. AR’sFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(a)

…ellant company to inflate its expenses and to claim it as business expenditure. Thus claiming of such bogus expenditure falls within the ambit of the term “colourable devices” as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. Vs ITO 154 ITR 148 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 resorting to dubious method. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resort…

Nerka Chemicals P. Ltd, Gujrat vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4423/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Sh. Girish Dave Special
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 2(22)(a)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 28Section 56(1)

…On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in holding the aforesaid transaction as a colourable device to avoid tax by applying the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co Ltd (154 ITR 148) 2.13 The CIT(A) further erred in making the following observations: (i) it is indisputable that through concerted and coordinated action, the Shroff family/Group entered into a web of transactions of transfer of shares of UPL and UEL held in individual capacity/through firms/companies/trusts to the appellant so as to enable them to raise their…