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

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Lexi P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6162/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2011-12 Dcit-8(2), M/S Lexi Pvt. Ltd. R. No.209, B-33, 6Th Floor, Lexi Centre, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Off. New Link Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Anderi (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 Pan No.Aaacl7243D (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 801Section 80ISection 8O

…ts industrial premises at Bombay. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has already placed reliance upon the decision in CIT vs Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. 82 ITR 363 (SC), Tuticorin Alkalis Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172 and Mc.Dowells Co. Ltd. 154 ITR 148 along with other decisions of the Tribunal. So far as, the contention of the Revenue that the order of the Tribunal has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court, is concerned, no contrary decision was brought to our notice, therefore, the order of the Tribunal as on date, stands. The assessee set- up the industrial undertaking in industriall…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/S Goverdhan Builders Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, ground No. 2 of the

ITA 454/JPR/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT)For Respondent: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)

Section 45(2)

…y is very low which is also not very justifiable and considering the application of decision of Hon’ble ITA No. 454 & 455/JP/2012 7 The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s Goverdhan Builders Pvt. Ltd Supreme Court in the McDowell & Co. Ltd vs. CTO Ltd 154 ITR 148 and various other decisions cited by the A.O, it will be appropriate to estimate the business profit of the appellant after rejecting book results at Rs. 2 lakh for A.Y 2007-08 and Rs. 3 lakh for A.Y 2008-09 against the business loss of Rs. 13,24,168/- and Rs. 15,90,568/- shown by the appellant.” 3.3. We have heard the rival submissions and pursu…

Shloka Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

ITA 4004/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 10Section 115J

…gain into “share income from partnership firm”, so that it could escape from the taxation u/s 115JB of the Act, by availing exemption u/s 10(2A) of the Act. The AO took support of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mc Dowell (1985)(154 ITR 148) to discard the colourable device adopted by the assessee to escape from the provisions of sec. 115JB of the Act. Though the assessee contended that it has only done a legitimate tax planning by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings BV Vs. Union of India (17 Taxmann.com 2…

Ravi Poddar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 130/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Meena (JCIT)

Section 148Section 2

…days prior to due date of premium and no premium was paid by assessee and policy was surrendered thereafter, proceeds of which were claimed exempt, thus it was a colourable method to evade tax in view of Supreme Court decision in the case of McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148. In this regard, attention of the Hon’ble Bench is invited to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court delivered in the case of CIT Vs. Rajan Nanda reported in 349 ITR Page 8 wherein this issues has been elaborately discussed by the Hon’ble High Court and it has been held that “No income Ravi Poddar Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur could be charg…

Harish Radeshyam Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5515/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5515/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Shri Harish Radeshyam The Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ Khandelwal, 30(1)(4), V. C/O D.C. Jain & Co., C-13, 6 Th Floor, 75, Bombay Mutual Bldg. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 293, Room No. 604, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 001. Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpk6531H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.C. JainFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148

…not sufficient to establish genuineness of these purchases. The A.O. relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwal Gems v. Jt. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 10(SC) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell and Co. Limited v. CIT 154 ITR 148(SC). Thus, the A.O. held that assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries through bogus bills issued by these four parties whereby there were no actual delivery of the goods. The AO observed that onus is on the assessee to prove genuineness of transactions as these transactions are appearing in assessee’s books of accounts and in the inst…

ITO, Alwar vs. Kundan Lal Badshah, Alwar

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is disposed off with above directions

ITA 383/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Prithivi Raj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 50C

…ld be relevant at this stage to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the application of doctrine of ‘Substance over Form’ in the case of Vodafone International Holdings vs. UOI-341 ITR 1 (SC) and in the case of McDowell Co. Ltd. vs. CTO-154 ITR 148 (SC) has been upheld. The appellant has received his share of money standing to the credit of capital account from the firm at the time of his retirement and the asset has remained with the firm. The appellant has admitted on oath these facts and ratified again before the AO in the course of 18 ITO, Ward-1(1) Vs. Kundan Lal Badshah, Alwar remand…

ITO, WD-7(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Energy Development Compnay Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 797/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.797/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Ito Ward-7(3), Kolkata, Vs. M/S Energy Development P-7, Chowringhee Square, Company Limited, R.No.17, 5Th Floor, Kolkata- Edcl House, 1A, Elgin 700 069 Road, Kolkata-700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 6969 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : None "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Ms.Vandana Bhandari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: ` The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Viii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.145/Cit(A)-Viii/Kol/13-14, Dated 27.02.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income On Dated 14.10.2010, For A.Y.2010-11. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & The Ao Framed Assessment U/S.143(3) Treating The Forfeited Amount Of Rs.12,40,00,000/- As Revenue Income In Respect Of 75000 Warrants. The Assesse Under Consideration Had Forfeited 75000 Warrant Amounting To Rs. 12,40,00,000/- Allotted To Promoters & Other Investors

For Appellant: Ms.Vandana BhandariFor Respondent: None

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 28

…share warrant amounting to Rs.12.40 cores. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)-VIII, Kolkata erred in not applying the dictum of colourable device enunciated in the case of McDowell & Company Limited vs. C.T.O. (1985) 154 ITR 148. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)-VIII, Kolkata erred in not allowing the addition made on forfeiture of share warrant amounting to Rs.12.40 crores to be added in Book Profit assessable u/s.115JB of the IT Act, 1961 which falls automatically in line with the addition. 7. The appellant craves leave to ad…

I.T.O WD - 8(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Ruia Sons Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 365/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 301Section 40

…rd of Directors, it has to be considered and taken cognizance of and cannot be brushed aside. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Azadi Bacho Andolen 263 ITR 706 (SJ~) after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of MacDowell 154 ITR 148 made a distinction between tax avoidance and tax planning. it was held:- "having anxiously scanned MacDowell' s case, we find no reference therein to having dissented from or overruled the decision of the Privy Council in the Bank of Chettinands case 8 ITR 522 (PC). In any the principles appears to have been reiterated with approval by the Const…

I.T.O WD - 7(3), Kolkata. vs. M/S Shalini Properties & Developers Private Limited., Kolkata

In the result the appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 171/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 171/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-7(3) -Vs.- M/S. Shalini Properties & Developers Kolkata Pvt. Limited., Kolkata [Pan : Aahcs 7896 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 301Section 37(1)

…oard of Directors, it has to be considered and taken cognizance of and cannot be brushed aside. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Azadi Bacho Andolen 263 ITR 706 (SC) after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell 154 ITR 148 made a distinction between tax avoidance and tax planning it was held :- “ having anxiously scanned MacDowerll’s case, we find no reference therein to having dissented from or overruled the decision of the Privy Council in the Bank of Chettinand case 8 ITR 522 (PC). In any of the principles appears to have been reiterated with approval by the Con…

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 3704/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 2 Of 50 National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR

Section 271Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…hase of houses in India for residential purposes is not correct and without any basis. Page 12 of 50 The claim of assessee us/36(1)(viii) is a colourable device used for tax avoidance. Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of M/s McDowell & 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. (ii) The AR of the assessee has given examples that the claim or the assessee does not amount to double deduction. However, this calculation is not so simple as presented by them and it is subjected to…

M/S Kht Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1432/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. H. V. Gowthama, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 40

…s a case where real nature of the payment showed that the very same person who were managing the company, had been shown as in receipt of remuneration being the partners of the firm. In the light of the dictum laid down in Mc Dowell & Co., Ltd. Vs. CTD (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) 22 Taxman 11(SC), the transaction in question was clearly a device to avoid tax and the same was not convincing. Further held that : “The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) reversed the order passed by the Assessing officer only on the ground that to have the application of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, it should have been established that…

Sri Lalit Kumar Rupchandani, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-33(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 673/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Akash Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sk. Z. H. Tanveer, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ch the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that accounting entries alone are not determinative of the actual nature, character and scope of the transaction. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mac Dowell Company. Ltd. VS CIT(1985) 154 ITR 148 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even if transaction is genuine and even if it is actually acted upon if the transaction is entered into with the intention to avoid taxes then the transaction is considered Colourable Devise. Further, reliance was also placed on the judgment of Delhi Court in the case of Bhagat Construction Company Pv…

Kiran Navin Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2601/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deysmt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai Pan – Abwpd5848A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Milind Rajguru

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…124 : (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and held that the decision of an adjudicating body based on surrounding circumstances and human probabilities is not bad in law and deserves to be upheld. In the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126 : (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), the apex Court held that colourable devices are not part of legitimate tax planning. Going by the ratio of these decisions, we are of the view that the assessee-firm cannot be dissociated from the scheme of declaration of gold under the Amnesty Scheme in 18 Smt. Kiran Navin Doshi the names of the family members of the partners of the assess…

M/S. Srinidhi Textiles, Erode vs. ITO, Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 971/CHNY/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d the processing unit to the firm (the present assessee) by way of book entry only to gain take it on lease and continue its business. The entire transaction is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd., in ITR 154 ITR 148(SC). It is also strange that the building and machinery atone are transferred by book entry Leaving the land with the company which is not physically possible. The entire transaction appears to be sham and just by book entries the firm has tried to make it claim for depreciation on the building and machinery purported to the have transferred by t…

Sh Chand Rattan Bagri, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 5

ITA 2125/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishichand Rattan Bagri, Acit, 4318/3, Ansari Road, Circle-3(1), Vs. Darya Ganj, New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan:Aagpb1216K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Chand Rattan Bagri, Acit, 4318/3, Ansari Road, Circle-3(1), Vs. Darya Ganj, New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan:Aagpb1216K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. CS Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ften of a complex nature but where the main purpose is to defer, reduce or completely avoid the tax payable under the law." 3.3 Further, the Assessing Officer referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) and CIT vs. Indian Express Newspapers (Madhurai) P Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 70; decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. vs. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 77. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case K. Ramasamy vs. CIT (2003) 162 ITR 358. The Assessing Officer conclude…

ITO (E)-II(1), Mumbai vs. Kalyani Cartiable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 198/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm (Assessment Year :2010-11 Ito (E)-Ii(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kalyani Charitable Trust, C/O. Ravi Communication, Jj Hospital Campus, Byculla, Mumbai- 400008 Pan/Gir No. Aaatk3179R Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80G

…s concern of the trustees. The .agreement being colorable device, is liable to be treated non- est and cannot be relied upon as an evidence in support of the claim that the amount diverted is in the nature of 'deposit for leased assets'. e) Hon. Apex Court in 154 ITR 148 (SC) McDowell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commercial tax Officer has 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 honourable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is oblig…

DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ethl Global Capital Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 185/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./185/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09 Dcit,5(1)(2), M/S. Ethl Global Capital Ltd. Room No.568, 5Th Floor 19, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mahalaxmi Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400028 Mumbai-400 020 Pan:Aabce 4907 A (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri P.R. Ghosh-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kisnadwala सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:06.01.2017 लेखा सद", राजे" के अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- Challenging The Orders Dated 21.10.2014 Of The Cit(A)- 9,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer(Ao) Has Filed Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Holding Investment In Shares & Debentures Of Companies,Filed Its Return Of Income On 23.09.2008,Disclosing Total Income At Rs.Nil. Original Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of. Act On 29.10.2010. Thereafter The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 Of I.T. Act & Reassessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Act On 28/03/2013 ,Determining Its Total Income At Rs.4,26,49,193/-.

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Ghosh-DR

Section 133(3)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147

…ce the funds as loan to enable the latter to mobilize resources for acquisition of USAL Lincese from DOT.He held that the advance of Rs.175 crores was a loan given by the assessee. Applying the principle of decision of Apex Court in the case of M/s. MC Dowell(154 ITR 148),the AO held that on the said loan notional interest @20% for 77 days has to be taxed at Rs.7,48,61,111/-. 3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA)and made elaborate submissions.After considering the available material,he held that as per the provisions of Act only the income a…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Mckinsey Kinowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon

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

ITA 499/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mckinsey Knowledge Centre Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, Circle-16(2), Vatika Business Park, New Delhi. Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccm2356G Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Mckinsey Knowledge Circle-16(2), Centre Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, New Delhi. Vatika Business Park, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccm2356G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate & Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Department By : Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit, Dr & Shri Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2016 Order Per R.S. Syal, Am: These Two Cross Appeals – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue - Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR &

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…s. Such new method was claimed to 39 have resulted into shifting of income from India vis-à-vis the earlier years. It was argued that the assessee resorted to tax avoidance by changing the model of remuneration. Relying on Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), the ld. DR urged that the assessee’s attempt to thwart the payment of legitimate taxes in India should be put to rest. Taking support from the definition of `international transaction’ as given in clause (e) of Explanation to section 92B, the ld. DR contended that there should be a separate determination of the ALP of this transaction.…

Mckinsey Knowledge Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 154/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR &

Section 143(3)Section 144C

M/S Sobha Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 1692/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 234

…shed accountancy principles whereby current trade liabilities have been made to change their character overnight to loans simply by means of a journal entry. 4.16. In this connection, I note that it is made clear by the Ld. Supreme Court in the McDowell case (154 ITR 148) that where a transaction was found to be colorable, the AO would be within his rights to treat it as a sham one when it is seen that apart from the satisfaction of legal formality and documentation, there existed an angle of lack of credibility and the flavor of an intention towards tax evasion. Though the appellant has challenged the decision o…