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 366,470 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

M/S Sobha Glazing & Metal Works Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1630/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

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…

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

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

ITA 1607/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

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…

S.D.N. Company, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 4863/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. Nitin Waghmode
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 251oSection 401A(2)(b)Section 40A(2)(b)

…s charged @ 1% of the transaction and the amount of brokerage claimed in this case is abnormally higher than the normal rate. On the other hand the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Macdowell & Co vs. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 148(SC), Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, in CIT vs Shekkawat Rajputana Trading Corporation(1999) 236 ITR 1950 Cal and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Twinstar Holding Ltd.vs DCIT (2003) 260 ITR 8 (Bom.), disallowed the entire amount claimed by the assessee holding that the company to whom the brokerage was paid has failed to establish that it was author…

M/S Sanyo Bpl Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1395/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S. Sanyo Bpl Pvt. Ltd. Jubilee Bldg., Ii Floor, No.45, Museum Road, Bengaluru-560025. … Appellant Pan: Aajcs 0332 B

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.Sudhakar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

…transferor of the business by claiming to be slump sale transaction. Thus it is nothing but a colourful device adopted with the intention of tax avoidance and the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of McDowell& Co. Ltd v. CTO (1984) (154 ITR 148) are squarely applicable. Thus, the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 11. Ground Nos.5 to 10 challenge the addition made by the AO invoking Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short]. 12. Learned counsel for assessee argued that the claim for depreciation was made on the basis o…

Bloom Packaging P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4663/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Precy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita Menon, DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 14A

…in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in holding that the aforesaid transaction of gifting in UPL and UEL shares to NCPL 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) 5.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in making various observations which are factually incorrect and contrary to the facts available on record which the appellant carves leave to elucidate at the time of hearing, leading to perverse finding that the aforesaid transaction as a colourable device to…

Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1633/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodiait (Tp) A No.182 (Bang) 2014 (Assessment Years : 2009 – 10)

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain & Shri Madhur Jain AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 37(1)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(2)Section 92B(2)

…determination of the actual state of affairs in a business arrangement without appreciating the settled legal position as noted in para 5.3 of the order of the Learned DRP. (E). The Learned authorities erred in applying the decision in Mcdowell Ltd., vs.CTG, 154 ITR 148(SC) without appreciating the fact that this transaction entered into was meant to safeguard the appellant against price fluctuation on a long term basis and not with any view to avoid a tax liability that might arise at a later stage, which the appellant even could not have foreseen. (F). The Learned Authorities failed to appreciate that when the…

Jaidev R. Shroff, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC- 6(3) Earstwhile ACIT - CC-38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4660/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shuklajaidev R. Shroff, फनाभ/ Acit, Central Circle-38, Cd Marg, Khar (W), (After Restructuring New Vs. Mumbai – 400 052. Jurisdiction Dcit, Cc 6(3)), Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aalps9283N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Rajnikant D. Shroff, फनाभ/ Acit, Central Circle-38, Uniphos House, 11Th Road, Mumbai. Vs. Cd Marg, Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aalps9281Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Vikram R. Shroff, फनाभ/ Acit, Central Circle-38, Cd Marg, Khar (W), (After Restructuring New Vs. Mumbai – 400 052. Jurisdiction Dcit, Cc 6(3)), Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaops8597C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) फनाभ/ Sandra R. Shroff, Acit, Central Circle-38, Cd Marg, Khar (W), (After Restructuring New Vs. Mumbai – 400 052. Jurisdiction Dcit, Cc 6(3)), Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Ahhps2731G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Precy Pardiwala, Mr. JasFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(a)Section 47Section 56(1)(viia)Section 56(2)(vii)

…he body of the said agreement. Further, AO considered the ultimate end beneficiary of these transfer of shares by the assessee and held that it is not a straight case of gift to NCPL. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of McDowell & Co Ltd (154 ITR 148) (SC), AO held that the said transfer of shares constitutes a „colourable device‟. Further also, the AO reasoned that the provisions of section 47(iii) of the Act are not applicable to these transfer transactions as these are not „gift transactions‟ although transfer is done without involving any consideration (para 4.11 of the AO‟s order). Furth…

Asha M Marfatia, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 18(1) (Old) New 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ramlal Negimrs. Asha M. Marfatia, I-11/12, Paragaon Condmium, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 013. Pan:Aahpm 6090M ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Range- 18(1), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai 400 012 .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Respondent By : Shri A.B.Koli Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 /09/2016

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri A.B.Koli
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…f shares has resulted into saving of taxes would not make the transaction colourable. Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that the reference made by the CIT(A) to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO, 154 ITR 148 (SC) is misplaced and it was pointed out that subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) held that the decision in the case of Mcdowell & Company(supra) cannot be understood to mean that every attempt of tax planning is illegitimate or that every transaction or arr…

V.R.Global Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 871/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.871/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S V.R. Global Energy Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Known As Ttg V. Corporate Ward 3(4), Consolidates Pvt. Ltd.), Chennai - 600 034. No.5, T.V. Street, Chetpet, Chennai - 600 031. Pan : Aabct 3716 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 68

…re only colourable device for the purpose of introducing cash credit by way of share premium and share capital to the assessee-company. Therefore, by placing reliance on the observation made by the Apex Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v Commercial Tax Officer (154 ITR 148), the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Since admittedly there was entry in the books, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee cannot now claim that the provisions of Section 68 of the Act is not applicable. 6. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material availa…

Ultima Search, Gujrat vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

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

ITA 4646/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shuklaultima Search, फनाभ/ Acit, Central Circle-38, 1/3, Gidc Estate, Vapi, (After Restructuring New Vs. Bulsar, Gujarat-396195. Jurisdiction Dcit, Cc 6(3)), Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaafu7129A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Precy Pardiwala, Mr. JasFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45Section 45(4)Section 47Section 48Section 56

…and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in holding the aforesaid transaction of gifting of UPL and UEL shares to NCPL 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). 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in making various observations which are factually incorrect and contrary to the fact available on record which the appellant craves leave to elucidate at the time of hearing, leading to perverse finding that the aforesaid transaction as a colourable device to…

Credit Suisse Business Analystics (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt.CIT- 15(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 993/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 78

…of the shares were not readily ascertainable due to various constraints, that the value of shares could be taken only at Rs. 10 per share, that the receipt of use premium of Rs. 187/- per-share was a device to avoid tax. He relied upon the cases of McDowell (154 ITR 148), Banyan and Berry (222 ITR 831) and Azadi Bachao Andolan and others (256 ITR 563) and held that the intention behind the transaction would be the guiding factor to decide as to whether the judicial process could approve the transaction. He also analyse the provisions of section 78 of the Companies Act(CA)and examined as to whether the premium co…

M/S Om Welfare Society, Hisar vs. ITO, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1583/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…tion letter, we relied on the following cases also:- -I.C.D.S. LTD V. CIT[2013] 350 ITR 527[SC] - CIT V. INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD. [2015] 374 ITR 104 [Bombay] -C1T V. HIGH ENERGY BATTERIES (INDIA) LTD 348 ITR 574 [MAD] [2012] -MC Dowell and Co Ltd V. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 [SC] 5 Om Welfare Society -Union of India V. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 [SC] -Parveen P Bharuch V. DCIT 348 ITR 325 [Bombay] [2012] -Asian Paint Ltd V. DCIT 308 ITR 195 [Bombay] [2009] -Carntin India Ltd V. Addl. CIT 314 ITR 275 [Bombay] [2009] -CIT V. Nirma Chemicals Works P Ltd 309 ITR 67 [Guj] [2009] The Assessing Officer decline…

ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Acytelene Trexim (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1429/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2009-10 ITO, Ward-9(1), V/s. M/s Acytelene Trexim (P) Ltd., 14, N.S. Road (4th P-7, Choringhee Square, Aayakar Floor), Clive Row, Bhawan, 5th Floor, Kolkata-700 001 Room-14, Kolkata- [PAN No.AACCA 4045 J] 700 069 अपीलाथ" /Appellant .. ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Debasish Banerjee, JCIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 20-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement…

Ratnakar M. Pujari, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 995/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.995/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Ratnakar M. Pujari, Income Tax Officer, Ward बनाम/ Shop No. 10, Geeta Sadan, 25(3)(3), V. Iraniwadi No. 3, R. No. 304, Kandivali (W), C-11, Pratyakshakar Mumbai – 400057. Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Agcpp8410B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Bist (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 148

…the contention of the assessee after discussing the assessment order for the assessment year 2005-06 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. He has also relied on the following case laws to support his finding: 1. Mc Dowell and Company Limited v. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148(SC) 2. Phoolchand Bajrang Lal v. ITO (1992) 203 ITR 456 (SC) 3. Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. ACIT (Delhi HC) (2006) 151 Taxmann 41 (Delhi) 4. Indo Aden Salt Mfg. & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. V. CIT, 159 ITR 624 (SC) 5. Ram Prasad v. ITO (1995) 82 Taxman 199 (All) 6. Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. ACIT (2006) 151 Taxmann 41 (Delhi) 7. Keve…

Rahil Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

ITA 4002/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (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…

ITO, Ward - 56(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Pks Holdings, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1677/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1677/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-56(2) -Vs.- M/S. Pks .Holdings Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaifp7778G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Jcit, Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri A.K.Updhay, Ar

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Updhay, AR
Section 88E

…of tax evasion and tax avoidance as laid down by the 4 5 M/s. PKS Holdings A.Yr.2007-08 (vii) The principle on the matter of tax evasion and tax avoidance as laid down by the Supreme Court in landmark judgment in the case of McDowell & co. Ltd. V. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148/22 Taxman 11 (SC) can have its application only where colourable or artificial devices are adopted and not to the transactions which are otherwise legitimate and are undertaken bona fide in the ordinary course of business. In other words, McDowell & Co. Ltd's case (supa) can have its application where the devices though seemingly legal are adopte…

Bharat Homes Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. - 9(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6792/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Amit Shukla (Jm) I.T.A. No. 6792/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 2008-09)

Section 6

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Amit Shukla (JM) I.T.A. No. 6792/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 2008-09) M/s. Bharat Homes Ltd. Asst.CIT 9(1) 1st Floor, A.N. House Vs. Mumbai 31st Road, TPS III Bandra West MUMBAI-400 050. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAACB3564H Assessee by Shri Hariom Tulsyan Department by Smt. Rajeshwari Motwani Date of Hearing 3.5.2016 Date of Pronouncement 27.5.2016 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, AM :- The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.08.2011 passed by Ld CIT(A)-19, Mumbai for assessment year 2…

ACIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Pawan Kumar Malhotra, Prop., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5556/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Asstt.Commissioner Of Inome Tax, Vs Shri Pawan Kumar Malhotra, Circle –I, Block I-B, M/S Neumann Engineering New Cgo Complex, Work, 16/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad. Faridabad. H.No. 1506, Sector-15, Faridabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 08.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016

For Appellant: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agrawal, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2005-06 Asstt.Commissioner of Inome Tax, vs Shri Pawan Kumar Malhotra, Circle –I, Block I-B, M/s Neumann Engineering New CGO Complex, Work, 16/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad. Faridabad. H.No. 1506, Sector-15, Faridabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. DR Respondent by: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agrawal, Adv. Date of hearing: 08.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 29.04.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER The…

Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh.D.V. Taneja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 56(2)(v)

…out of love and affection of the donor for the donee. In presence of these facts, in our considered opinion the ld. CIT(A) has committed no error in relying upon the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO, 154 ITR 148 (SC) where it has been laid down that 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 dubious methods. In the instant case, the change of stand by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) is nothing but a colourable device for tax avoidance which…

Asian Advertising, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee firm in ITA N0

ITA 2349/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2349/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Asian Advertising, Ito – 12(3)(4), बनाम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chambers, Mumbai. V. 66, Nagindas Master Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafa1477D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)
Section 31Section 32Section 37

…nterest have been made mostly without deduction of tax at source and only an amount of Rs. 90,000/- was subjected to deduction of taxes at source. The A.O. relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO reported in 154 ITR 148 and held that the entire interest cannot be attributed to the business requirement of the assessee firm and in the interest of natural justice , only 25% of the interest expense claimed i.e. Rs. 1,74,519/- was ITA 2349/Mum/2013 46 disallowed by the A.O. , vide assessment order dated 30-11-2009 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 11.Aggrieved by the…