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 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

ACIT 21(2), Mumbai vs. Kiran Aggarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1055/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…M u m / 2 0 1 6 a n d o t h e r t w o a p p e a l s the present case, the trust is resident of Bahamas and the beneficiaries are residents of India. The ld. DR in defense of his arguments relied upon the series of decisions as under : i) McDowell and Co Ltd -154 ITR 148 (SC); ii) Twinstar Holdings Ltd V/s DCIT – 260 ITR 0006 (Bom); iii) Nayantara G Agarwal V/s CIT -207 ITR 639 (Bom); iv) Onam Agarbathi Co V/s DCIT-310 ITR 56 (Kar); v) Pravinbhai M Kheni V/s ACIT -28 taxmann.com 111(Guj); vi) CIT V/s Rothman Cycle Ind. Pvt.Ltd (2011) 203 taxman 302; vii) CIT V/s Bharti Devi Sarabhi -231 ITR 526 (SC); viii) Moti…

ITO, Bhubaneswar vs. Orissa Computer Application Centre, Bhubaneswar

ITA 282/CTK/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Oct 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR/D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 251

…property/assets placed at its disposal but owned by the Government. The mere technicality that it tried to obtain a certificate of registration u/s 12AA should not be held against the Appellant. In the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, (154 ITR 148) (SC), albeit in a case of tax planning through mitigation of sales tax by having the buyers separately pay the excise duty, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed the view of English cases while examining a legally valid transaction, and held that the Revenue should proceed objectively and not hypothetically attribute 'motives' behind the taxpayer…

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Jostars Orogotech P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1288/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘D’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, AM & Shri Shaktijit Dey, JM ITA No.1288/Mum/2017 : Asst.Years 2009-2010 The Income Tax Officer M/s.Jostars Orogotech Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Ward 6(3)(3) A-501 Innova Marathon, Next to Gen Mumbai. Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. PAN : AABCJ3749B. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) CO No.191/Mum/2017 : Asst.Years 2009-2010 M/s.Jostars Orogotech Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ A-501 Innova Marathon, Next to Gen Ward 6(3)(3) Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg…

Bhadresh Trading Company, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part

ITA 2083/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

Section 101Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…n CIT Vs. Durga Prasad 82 ITR 540 (SC) and SumatiDayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC). (vii) that the purchase from hawala operators falls within the ambit of the term "colourable devices" and the Supreme Court observed 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 methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting…

Golden Soya Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD No, 2(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) I.T.A. No. 574/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 573/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 572/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 571/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2008-09)

Section 57

…ntal income as income from business and claiming unrelated expenditures against the same resulting in business los is not acceptable on the facts and circumstances of the case. The decision rendered in the case of McDowell & Co. v/s Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 154 ITR 148, 171(SC) (Constitution Bench) is directly applicable in assessee's case. In the said case it was held by the Hon. Supreme Court that tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the parameters of law. Colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning. It is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that, it is honorable to avoid the payme…

Trends Pharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-

ITA 7132/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/S Trends Pharma, The Income Tax Officer-24(3)(4), 6Th Floor, Matharu Arcade, C-11, Pratyakasha Kar Bhavan, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400057 Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai Pan: Aaaft2250K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kirit S Sanghvi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)
Section 143(3)

…tention of the assessee disallowed the capital loss of Rs. 70,24,000/- and added back to the total income of the assessee. 3. In appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell & Company Ltd vs. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (Supreme Court) affirmed the action of the AO holding that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares entered into by the appellant and generation of short term capital loss of Rs. 70,24,000/- as same transaction. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following effe…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Core Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1905/DEL/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui.T. Appeal Nos. 1590 & 1905/Del/2011 Assessment Years : 1996-97 & 1997-98. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Core Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Ward : 3 (4), Vs. 401–Padma Tower–Ii, New Delhi. 22, Rajendra Place, N E W D E L H I 110 008. Pan : Aaacc 2712 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…under section 115JB and the loss remained unadjusted upto assessment year 2004-05, which was the last year of the carry forward of loss. Alleged tax avoidance 21. Entire case of the department revolves around the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). In the 15 I.T. Appeal Nos. 1590 & 1905/Del/2011 Assessment Years : 1996-97 & 1997-98. present case, transaction was not a device to avoid tax because: • It cannot be said that on the date assessee purchased a share it knew that market value will fall and it will incur loss. • No tax has been avoided because no tax was payable. • Legal ef…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Core Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1590/DEL/2011[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui.T. Appeal Nos. 1590 & 1905/Del/2011 Assessment Years : 1996-97 & 1997-98. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Core Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Ward : 3 (4), Vs. 401–Padma Tower–Ii, New Delhi. 22, Rajendra Place, N E W D E L H I 110 008. Pan : Aaacc 2712 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…under section 115JB and the loss remained unadjusted upto assessment year 2004-05, which was the last year of the carry forward of loss. Alleged tax avoidance 21. Entire case of the department revolves around the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). In the 15 I.T. Appeal Nos. 1590 & 1905/Del/2011 Assessment Years : 1996-97 & 1997-98. present case, transaction was not a device to avoid tax because: • It cannot be said that on the date assessee purchased a share it knew that market value will fall and it will incur loss. • No tax has been avoided because no tax was payable. • Legal ef…

Lal Chand Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 515/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 148Section 45(3)Section 50CSection 69C

…has also made an allegation that the transaction between the assessee and the firm on the basis of partnership deed dated 01.03.2006 is sham and not genuine. Such allegation of the AO is baseless and without any substance. The Supreme Court in McDowell’s case 154 ITR 148 relied by the AO has held that tax planning is legitimate provided that it is within the framework of law. Again the SC in case of Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 after considering the McDowell’s case held that one could not accept the ITA No. 515/JP/15 Lalchand Meena, vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Jaipur submission that an act which is otherwise valid in…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 13, Mumbai vs. M/S. Lotus Investments Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3612/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2017AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri P K Bansal, Vp & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanhaFor Respondent: Shri Shri Pratap Singh (CIT –DR)
Section 250(4)

…also been explained and distinguished by the Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Aandolan.-263 ITR 706. It has therefore been contended that considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the ratio of Supreme Court decision in McDowell's case (154 ITR 148) and other cases cited in the assessment order are not applicable to the present case. Taking into consideration the observations made by the AO, the facts brought out by appellant in defence, the remand report submitted by the A.O. in response to the directions of my predecessor CIT(A) in the office as well as in response to the rejoinder to th…

M/S Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2512/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishistylish Construction Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, 1027, Top Floor, Ward No. 8, Circle-9(1), Vs. Mehra Chowk, Mehrauli New Delhi Pan: Aaics4664H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. NK Bansal, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 73

…He was of the opinion that looking to the impediments attached to such shares, the same would hardly have any market value. He was, therefore, of the opinion that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 148/22 Taxman 11 would apply. 6. The assessee carried the matter further in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order reversed the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. Tribunal placed reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of A.M.P. Arunachalam v. A.R. Krishnamurthy [1979] 49 Comp. Cas. 662 (Mad) wherein…

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. Dr. Yusuf Kumble, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1379/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 47

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH : MANGALORE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1376 & 1377/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Dr. Ali Kumble, Income Tax, No.4, Water Woods, Central Circle 1, Sathyajit Nagar, Mangaluru. Kadri Kaibattal, Mangalore. PAN: ACAPA 5798F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.1378 & 1379/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Dr. Yusuf Kumble, Income Tax, No.703, West Wind, Central Circle 1, Near DC Bungalow, Mangaluru. Col…

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. Dr. Yusuf Kumble, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1378/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 47

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH : MANGALORE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1376 & 1377/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Dr. Ali Kumble, Income Tax, No.4, Water Woods, Central Circle 1, Sathyajit Nagar, Mangaluru. Kadri Kaibattal, Mangalore. PAN: ACAPA 5798F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.1378 & 1379/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Dr. Yusuf Kumble, Income Tax, No.703, West Wind, Central Circle 1, Near DC Bungalow, Mangaluru. Col…

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. Dr. Ali Kumble, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1377/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 47

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH : MANGALORE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1376 & 1377/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Dr. Ali Kumble, Income Tax, No.4, Water Woods, Central Circle 1, Sathyajit Nagar, Mangaluru. Kadri Kaibattal, Mangalore. PAN: ACAPA 5798F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.1378 & 1379/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Dr. Yusuf Kumble, Income Tax, No.703, West Wind, Central Circle 1, Near DC Bungalow, Mangaluru. Col…

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. Dr. Ali Kumble, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1376/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 47

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH : MANGALORE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1376 & 1377/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Dr. Ali Kumble, Income Tax, No.4, Water Woods, Central Circle 1, Sathyajit Nagar, Mangaluru. Kadri Kaibattal, Mangalore. PAN: ACAPA 5798F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.1378 & 1379/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Dr. Yusuf Kumble, Income Tax, No.703, West Wind, Central Circle 1, Near DC Bungalow, Mangaluru. Col…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4852/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…e of Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 706 (SC), it has been held that every attempt at tax planning cannot be held to be legitimate advantages. In the case of Bunyan and Berry, 222 ITR 831 (Gujarat), while commenting on the decision in the case of McDowell & Co, 154 ITR 148 (SC), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed as under: "The court (i.e. the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell) nowhere said that every action or inaction on the part of the taxpayer which results in reduction of tax liability to which he may be subjected in future, is to be viewed with suspicion and be treated as a device for avoidance of t…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2562/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…e of Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 706 (SC), it has been held that every attempt at tax planning cannot be held to be legitimate advantages. In the case of Bunyan and Berry, 222 ITR 831 (Gujarat), while commenting on the decision in the case of McDowell & Co, 154 ITR 148 (SC), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed as under: "The court (i.e. the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell) nowhere said that every action or inaction on the part of the taxpayer which results in reduction of tax liability to which he may be subjected in future, is to be viewed with suspicion and be treated as a device for avoidance of t…

Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 11(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…e of Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 706 (SC), it has been held that every attempt at tax planning cannot be held to be legitimate advantages. In the case of Bunyan and Berry, 222 ITR 831 (Gujarat), while commenting on the decision in the case of McDowell & Co, 154 ITR 148 (SC), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed as under: "The court (i.e. the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell) nowhere said that every action or inaction on the part of the taxpayer which results in reduction of tax liability to which he may be subjected in future, is to be viewed with suspicion and be treated as a device for avoidance of t…

M/S. Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 789/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 43(1)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 789/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT 47th Milestone, Delhi-Jaipur Circle-3 Highway, Gurgaon Manesar, Gurgaon AAACP2626A (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv, Respondent by Sh. Amrender Kumar, CIT DR, Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement 28.04.2017 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Assessment O…

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Lekhraj H Doshi, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4502/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

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

…ner of Income Tax (Appeal) considered the factual matrix, relied upon the decision like Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540(SC), Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801, Jamuna Prasad Kanhaiya Lal vs CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC), Minakshi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 (SC), McDowells & Co. 154 ITR 148 (SC), Daulat Ram Rawatmal. 87 ITR 349, Chuhar Mal vs CIT 172 ITR 205 (SC), Nikunj Eximps, ITA No.5604 of 2010 (Bom.), Killick Nixon ltd. vs DCIT (2012) 20 taxman.com 703 (Bom.), Shri Ganesh Rice Mills vs CIT (2007) 294 ITR 316 (All.), Khandelwal Trading Company vs ACIT 55 TTJ 261(JP) and various other judicial pronouncements, as mentioned in the…