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 367,154 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

Rm.K.V.Fabrics Private Limited, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1594/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Q आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. RMKV Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [PAN: AAFCR 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross appeal by Revenue in ITA No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s.…

Rm.K.V.Silks Private Limited, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1593/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Section 47

Bfil Finance Limited (Formerly Itc Bhadrachalam Finance & Investments Ltd), Mumbai vs. I.T.O.1(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 Bfil Finance Ltd. (Formerly The Income-Tax Itc Bhadrachalam Finance & Vs. Officer-1(1)-1 Investment Ltd.) Eucharistic Aayakar Bhavan, Congress Building No. 1, 4Th Maharshi Karve Road, Floor, 5, Convent Street, Mumbai-400020. Colaba, Mumbai-400039. Pan No. Aaaci3193H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. F. V. Irani, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. F. V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR

Section 138Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ession of its assets given on hire purchase because ZGFL had given it on further lease to another company which was closed. However, the AO was not convinced with the above explanation of the assessee and relying on the decision in Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. v. ITO 154 ITR 148 (SC), disallowed the claim of loss of Rs.2,21,92,554/-. BFIL Finance Ltd. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held : “3.6 I have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. AR and gone through the assessment order. So far as the outstanding lease rentals amounting to Rs.42,…

Drishti Marine Solutions P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2803/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2803/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Drishti Marine Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 5 (1)-3, बनाम/ Top Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 15, Mathew Road, Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl 6405 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivam ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 11.03.2014 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Disallowing The Claim Of Deduction Of Interest Paid Of Rs.30,834/- On Pt, Vat & Service Tax.

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivamFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “डी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2803/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Drishti Marine Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 5 (1)-3, बनाम/ Top Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 15, Mathew Road, Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACL 6405 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Dr. K. Shivam ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ram Tiwari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 1…

Madhu Sarda, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the

ITA 7410/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Mrs. Madhu Sarda , 38,Vikas Center, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 Pan: Aajps 5135R Appellant/ Assessee Versus Income Tax Officer, -19(4) Mumbai Respondent/ Revenue

For Respondent: Sh. V. Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…suspicion and be treated as a device for avoidance of tax irrespective of legitimacy or genuineness of the act; an inference which unfortunately, in our opinion, the Tribunal apparently appears to have drawn from the enunciation made in McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC). The ratio of any decision has to be understood in the context it has been made. The facts and circumstances which lead to McDowell’s decision leave us in no doubt that the principle enunciated in the above case has not affected the freedom of the citizen to act in a manner according to his requirements, his wishes in the manner of doing any…

Emami Indrastructure Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 880/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Bajoria, Sr. Counsel, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Mishra, CIT, ld.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…hase price of 'the share on stock exchange on the date of sale. ii) In the case of Vodafone International Holding BV vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained it's earlier decision in the case of McDowell & Company Ltd. reported in 154 ITR 148 and has held that there is no conflict between the ratio of McDowell viz-a-viz Azadi Bachao and Mathuram Agarwal. Accordingly the colourable device made with the object of avoidance of tax without any commercial substance not acceptable. In the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that test of human probab…

M/S. Motherson Sumi Infotech & Designs Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6331/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav RastogiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…s 169 to 172 of the same paper book contain the details :- 1. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. vs., CIT 63 ITR 57 (SC). 2. Madhavji Dharmashingh Mfg Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 78 ITR 62 (SC). 3. JK Cotton Mfrs Ltd. vs., CIT 101 ITR 221. 4. Mcdowell & Co. Ltd Vs CTO 154 ITR 148 (S). 5. OECD guidelines. 3. The DRP rejected the contentions of the assessee regarding treatment of transactions on account of “outstanding receivables” because of the retrospective amendment of Section 92B(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 covered all such transactions i.e., “International Transactions”. It was also noted that the table prepared ex…

M/S. Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 5955/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. The I.T.O Gh – 9/5, Paschim Vihar Ward 18(1) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aatpa 0581 F [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2018

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

…e place of the proof as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC). It was further contended that the reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Company Ltd. vs. CTO 154 ITR 148 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Kerala High Court Judgment in the case of ITO vs. Diza Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 120 Taxmann 539 (Kerala), is not correct as these judgments have been delivered on entirely different facts. In the present case, it is clear from the facts that there is no allegation of any accommodation entry, nor th…

Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 997/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 1St Floor, Parekh Vora Ward-2(1)(2), बनाम/ Chambers, 66, Nagindas Mumbai. Vs. Master Road, Fort, Mumbai. (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcc 2192 B

…t is exempt. 16. The self imposed clause in the Articles of Association of Assessee company is nothing but a colourable device used for tax avoidance. It is pertinent to bring on record the observations of the apex court in McDowell and Co. Ltd.’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148. The same will apply in full vigour to the present case which read thus (pages 160 and 161): "In our view, the proper way to construe a taxing statute, while considering a device to avoid tax, is not to ask 9 Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd. whether the provisions should be construed literally or liberally, nor whether the transaction is not unreal…

Kaviraj Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1327/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…d on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd 63 ITR 609 where it was held that the 13. Authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of Corporate Entity and to look into reality of transaction. In the case of McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148(SC) it was stated that implications of tax avoidance are manifold. First, there is substantial loss of much needed public revenue. Next, there is serious disturbance caused to the economy of the country due to piling of mountains of black money, causing inflation. Thus, there is 'the large hidden loss' to the community (as pointed out by Master S…

DCIT Cen Cir 23 Cen RG -7, Mumbai vs. Thakur Estate Development P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3184/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-23 M/S Thakur Estate Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ashok Nagar, Churchgate, Kandivali (E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400101 Pan No. Aaact5599A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rajan.R. Vora, Ar Date Of Hearing : 13/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan.R. Vora, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…its that the promptness with which TEDPL and TET have responded to each other’s proposal and the manner in which the arbitration award has been given is only an eyewash and a mechanism to evade tax. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in McDowell v. CTO 154 ITR 148 (SC). M/s Thakur Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. 6 The Ld. DR thus submits that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the one passed by the AO be confirmed. 6. Per contra, the Ld. counsel of the assessee files a Paper Book (P/B) containing inter alia (i) copy of MoU between TEDPL. and TET dated 14 December 2007, (ii) copy of order from…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "J" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Joginer Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member M/s. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near ITC Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 PAN – AABCJ8295L Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent by: Shri Aarju Goradia Date of Hearing: 28.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 08.02.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the…

M/S Pumarth Properties & Holding (P) Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT (Central)-1, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 954/IND/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 132Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…at such use cannot be called “abuse of law”. Even assuming that the transaction was pre-planned there is nothing to impeach the genuineness of the transaction. 7 Pumarth Properties With regard to the ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [154 ITR 148(SC)], it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [263 ITR 706(SC)] it has been held that a citizen is free to carry on its business within the four corners of the law. That, mere tax planning, without any motive to evade taxes through colourable devices is not frowned upon even by the judgm…

Vijay Associates Wadhwa Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5460/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5460/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Associates Wadhwa Addl. Cit, Range 9(3), Construction Pvt. Limited Mumbai (Merged With Wadhwa Group बनाम/ Holdings Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Plot C-59, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccv 3657 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mahesh O. Rajora ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O. RajoraFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 43Section 43B

…d therefore addition to income to the extent of Rs 60,57,445/- is upheld. Reliance is placed on the Apex Court decisions in the case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. Vs CIT 87 ITR 542 (SC) ACIT Vs T. Naggi Reddy 202 ITR 253 (SC) Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. Vs CTO 154 ITR 148 (SC). Much like in the case of sales tax, the levy of service tax is on the service provider which in this case is the appellant. Even if the Rules of Payment is considered, since the appellant had collected the amount towards the service tax, it was liable to pay the service. The service tax payable cannot be allowed as a deduction as per secti…

DCIT, 1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Smt Vimlesh Kumar Singh, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 21/BIL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur Vs Late Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Through L/H Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Singh, Prop.M/S Manohar Engineering & M/S Sharda Engineering, Baikunth, District – Raipur Pan No. : Ahjps 0124 K (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Mrs. Shital Verma, Dr Assessee By : Shri K.P.Dewani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 08.02.2013 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,98,28,636/- Made By The Ao By Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Income From Undisclosed Sources.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Shares On Sale Of Which Ltcg Of Rs.1.95,39,611/- Was Shown & Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act Was Claimed Were Held Barely For Little More Than One Year To Qualify The Same As Long Term Capital Asset. The Cost Of The Shares Was Rs.2,69,400/- & Sale Consideration Was Rs.1,98,28,636/-. He

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Dewani, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Shital Verma, DR

Section 10(38)

…ot be considered as ingenuine/sham and, therefore, the sale proceeds of such share transactions cannot be taxed under s. 68.—Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124 : (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126 : (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) distinguished.” 15. The Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Ravindra Sanghai (HUF), ITA No.698//Kol/2010, vide order dated 22.05.2012,wherein the shares of Multiplus Resources Ltd. in question for earning of Long Term Capital Gain and shares held as under:- “2. The only issue in respect of ITA No. 698/K/2010 of revenue is…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shri Hari Investment, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 6062/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 10

…ame as business income. If the auditor did not consider the assessee's activity to be in the nature of business, then why the tax audit was conducted cannot be fathomed. 4. The Apex Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd Vs. CTO (1985 ) 154 ITR 148 has observed that tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Colourable devices cannot be a part of tax planning and it is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly. In the case of Mc. Dowell & Co. Limited Vs. CIT 154 ITR 148 (SC) and Union of India Vs. Plywood Electronics ( 1990) 184 ITR 308 (SC),…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shri Hari Investment, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 6063/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 10

Raj Kumar Baid, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 853/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 853/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Shri Raj Kumar Baid, I.T.O., Vs. 21, Sardar Bhawan, Mangal Marg, Ward 6(2), Bapu Nagar, Jaipur (Raj) Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHDPB 1623 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Satish Gupta (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :…

M/S. Sabari Enterprises, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.N.Madhavan,, ACIT, D.RFor Respondent: 15.11.2017

…purpose of bringing into existence the partnership firm was only to minimize the tax incidence. ITA No.2173 /Mds/2016 3 7. The learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) erred in referring to the decision of the apex Court in Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd., vs CTO, 154 ITR 148 (SC), to draw a conclusion that the appellant had attempted to avoid income-tax by admitting the “business consideration received” as income under the head business. 3. On perusing the appeal, we find that the assessee had filed the appeal with delay of 46 days. The assessee has submitted an Affidavit dated 19.07.2016 seeking condonation of del…

Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 999/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

For Appellant: Shri Hero Rai, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R

…is exempt. 16. The self imposed clause in the Articles of Association of Assessee company is nothing but a colourable device used for tax avoidance. It is pertinent to bring on record the observations of the apex court in McDowell and Co. Ltd.’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148. The same will apply in full vigour to the present case which read thus (pages 160 and 161): M/s. Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd. "In our view, the proper way to construe a taxing statute, while considering a device to avoid tax, is not to ask whether the provisions should be construed literally or liberally, nor whether the transaction is not unrea…