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

Usha Martin Ventures Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 847/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures V/S. Dcit, Circle-6 Ltd., 24, R.N.Mukherjee Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Squre, 700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 48Section 50(2)

…ove facts, the AO opined that transaction of selling of shares is the colorable device to escape from the burden of tax. Accordingly, AO disallowed the loss by relying in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell And Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that colorable device cannot be part of tax planning. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gillette Diversifies operations (p) ltd. (appeal no. 434/2009) has also held that these factors could have been relevant had the tribunal found the transactions undertaken by the assesse…

Kantadevi Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2829/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpg6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Ahrpg7451P

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, बी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member Assessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, ITO-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AABPG6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, ITO-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AHRPG7451P राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri V.S. Jadhav "नधा"र…

Santlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2)

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2802/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpg6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Ahrpg7451P

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, बी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member Assessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, ITO-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AABPG6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, ITO-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AHRPG7451P राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri V.S. Jadhav "नधा"र…

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1978/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 1978 & 1979/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Paliwal Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income B-14, Greater Kailash-1, Tax, Circle-12(2), New Delhi Bangalore (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7764E Assessee By : Sh. Satish Kumar Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Rasmita Jha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Kumar Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rasmita Jha, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 80I

…en entered into by the assessee can at the best be termed as tax planning, but in no way it can be opined as tax evasion. Tax planning is permissible. Reliance for the purpose was placed upon M/s. McDowell and Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, (1985) 154 ITR 148 and Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andotan(2003) 263 ITR 706." Besides the above relevant para in the judgement there are two Paras extracted from Apex Court decision in- SA Builders Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and another (2007) 288 ITR 1, wherein the Hon'ble S.C. had agreed per decision of jurisdictional Delhi H.Court(CIT V.…

DDIT(It) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Accordis Beheer B.V, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5025/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4688/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2006-07) M/S Accordis Beheer B V बनाम/ Director Of Income Tax Officer (As Successors To M/S Accordis (International Taxation)-1(1), Vs. Overseas Investment B V), Scindia House, C/O Bansi S Mehta & Co., Ballard Pier, 11/13, Bootawala Building, Mumbai-400038 2Nd Floor, Hornimum Circle, Mumbai-400001 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 112Section 391

…sation amalgamation or division of Century Enka Ltd. (CE) contemplated by the treaty. Further, the AO has every right to lift the corporate veil which is also supported by the landmark case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. v. CTO (1985) (154 ITR 148)(SC) wherein it was held 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 payment to tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay tax honestly wit…

Accordis Beheer B.V. ( As Successor to M.S, Accordis Overseas Investement B.V), Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4688/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4688/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2006-07) M/S Accordis Beheer B V बनाम/ Director Of Income Tax Officer (As Successors To M/S Accordis (International Taxation)-1(1), Vs. Overseas Investment B V), Scindia House, C/O Bansi S Mehta & Co., Ballard Pier, 11/13, Bootawala Building, Mumbai-400038 2Nd Floor, Hornimum Circle, Mumbai-400001 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 112Section 391

…sation amalgamation or division of Century Enka Ltd. (CE) contemplated by the treaty. Further, the AO has every right to lift the corporate veil which is also supported by the landmark case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. v. CTO (1985) (154 ITR 148)(SC) wherein it was held 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 payment to tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay tax honestly wit…

Commr.of Income Tax Delhi I vs. M/S Abhinandan Invest.Ltd

ITA/130/2001HC Delhi19 Nov 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel withFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms
Section 260A

…into “collusive transactions alongwith sister concerns and was indulging in such transactions regularly to evade proper payment of tax”. The CIT(A) had further held that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of the McDowell & Co. v. CIT: 154 ITR 148 (SC) was fully applicable in the facts of the present case. 6.15 On a further appeal by the Assessee, the ITAT accepted the Assessee’s contention and, consequently, the loss claimed by the Assessee on the renunciation of rights to subscribe to PCDs of JISCO was allowed to be set off against the profits made by the Assessee. The ITAT was of…

Goldie Prem Ahuja, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4545/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm) & Ashwani Taneja (Am)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…ement recorded u/s 132(4), no further incriminating documents were required. All other arguments were rejected by the Ld. CIT(A), and dismissed the contentions by applying the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cae of McDowell (154 ITR 148(SC) and Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706 (SC). It was held that once there was surrender by the builder and the bound to be in cash, and therefore rightly added by the AO. 10. Being aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has contested the order of ld. CIT(A) before us. 11. It is noted by us, as brought to our notice by the ld. C…

Manish C Jogani HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7344/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7344/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Manish C. Jogani, Huf Ito-16(2)(2), बनाम/ C/21, Shree Ganeshprasad Chs Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Sleater Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafhm 8076 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7345/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Sandeep C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aalhs 2461 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7346/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Girish C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhg 0062 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7347/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Champaklal D. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahj 8938 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : (A.Y. 2008-09) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jayesh Dadia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Bharati Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2015 Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2015 Date Of Order आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Four Appeals By Different Assessees, Agitating The Dismissal Of Their Appeals Contesting Their Respective Assessments U/S. 143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 07.2.2014 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Vide His Separate Orders Of Even Date (20.10.2014). The Issue/S Arising Being Common, The Appeals Were Posted For Hearing & Were Accordingly, Heard Together.

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Smt. Bharati Singh
Section 143(3)

…d toward which some binding decisions may be cited: CIT vs. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 609 (SC) Juggilal Kamlapat vs. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 702 (SC) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) Workmen, Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. vs. ARI Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 77 (SC) CIT v. Akshay Textile Trading & Agencies (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 401 (confirming that there was no departure from the principles/ratio of the decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd.(supra) in UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC)) Twinstar Holdings Ltd.v. Dy.…

Electroplast Engineers, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5363/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri P MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…nd held that payment of goodwill is nothing but payment on account of transfer of capital asset of the firm. He further held that creation of goodwill was a colourable device to camouflage the transaction. He also applied the principle of Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd [154 ITR 148] to confirm the addition made by the AO. The relevant observation and finding of the CIT(A) can be summarized in the following manner:- firstly, the Ld. CIT(A), agreed with the contention of the assessee that neither there was any dissolution of the firm nor the firm was discontinued. The firm continued by its remaining partners with all its asse…

DCIT - 20(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.B. Engg. Works, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 616/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-20(1) J.B. Eng. Works Room No.603, 6Th Flr, 797, Jesia Bldg. Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Jamshed Road, Parsi Vs. Mumbai-400012 Colony, Dadar (E) Mumbai -400014 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafj5106C Revenue By Shri S. S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Mr. Percy Pardiwalla,Sr. Advocate & Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

Section 143(3)

…ee has paid an inflated consideration to the Trust merely to reduce the tax liability by converting the maximum gain as Long Term Capital Gains. The Assessing Officer also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mcdowell & Co. Ltd 154 ITR 148, CIT vs Meenakshi Mills Ltd 63 ITR 609, Workman of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd vs Associated Rubber Industry Ltd 157 ITR 77 and CIT vs Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and on the decision of the Mumbai bench of ITAT in the case of Bombay Oil Industries 16 J.B. Eng. Works Ltd vs DCIT 82 ITD 626, to support his view that the transaction was a color…

Four Dimensions Securities (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1011/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…ian Bank Limited [1965] 56 ITR 77 (SC) (para 13) ii. CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 421 (Bom) (para 3) 10 Four dimensions Securities India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.322 & 790/Mum/2009 & Ors cases iii. McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) (para 20) iv. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450 (SC) (para 13) v. Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) (para 20) If this issue is analyzed with the provision contained in the Income Tax Act itself, section 294 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by providing that “if on the first day of Apri…

DCIT -4(1), Mumbai vs. Four Dimension Securities (I) Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 790/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…ian Bank Limited [1965] 56 ITR 77 (SC) (para 13) ii. CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 421 (Bom) (para 3) 10 Four dimensions Securities India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.322 & 790/Mum/2009 & Ors cases iii. McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) (para 20) iv. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450 (SC) (para 13) v. Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) (para 20) If this issue is analyzed with the provision contained in the Income Tax Act itself, section 294 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by providing that “if on the first day of Apri…

Four Dimensions Securities (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 322/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…ian Bank Limited [1965] 56 ITR 77 (SC) (para 13) ii. CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 421 (Bom) (para 3) 10 Four dimensions Securities India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.322 & 790/Mum/2009 & Ors cases iii. McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) (para 20) iv. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450 (SC) (para 13) v. Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) (para 20) If this issue is analyzed with the provision contained in the Income Tax Act itself, section 294 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by providing that “if on the first day of Apri…

M/S. Continental Device India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 316/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

…cess depreciation with reference to the enhanced cost of acquiring M/s Deltron Ltd. and therefore, the Explanation 3 below section 43(1) was clearly attracted. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ld. vs. CTRO 154 ITR 148 SC and, applied Explanation to section 43(1) to adopt the actual cost at the written down value of the assets in the hands of the transferor company, namely M/s Deltron Ltd. and excess deprecation claimed by the assessee was worked out by the AO as under: Block WDV as on Cost of Depreciation Deprecia- Difference 1.4.2004 in the acquisition a…

M/S Continental Device India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1319/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

…cess depreciation with reference to the enhanced cost of acquiring M/s Deltron Ltd. and therefore, the Explanation 3 below section 43(1) was clearly attracted. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ld. vs. CTRO 154 ITR 148 SC and, applied Explanation to section 43(1) to adopt the actual cost at the written down value of the assets in the hands of the transferor company, namely M/s Deltron Ltd. and excess deprecation claimed by the assessee was worked out by the AO as under: Block WDV as on Cost of Depreciation Deprecia- Difference 1.4.2004 in the acquisition a…

M/S Continental Device India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5656/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

…cess depreciation with reference to the enhanced cost of acquiring M/s Deltron Ltd. and therefore, the Explanation 3 below section 43(1) was clearly attracted. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ld. vs. CTRO 154 ITR 148 SC and, applied Explanation to section 43(1) to adopt the actual cost at the written down value of the assets in the hands of the transferor company, namely M/s Deltron Ltd. and excess deprecation claimed by the assessee was worked out by the AO as under: Block WDV as on Cost of Depreciation Deprecia- Difference 1.4.2004 in the acquisition a…

M/S Continental Device India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 134/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

…cess depreciation with reference to the enhanced cost of acquiring M/s Deltron Ltd. and therefore, the Explanation 3 below section 43(1) was clearly attracted. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ld. vs. CTRO 154 ITR 148 SC and, applied Explanation to section 43(1) to adopt the actual cost at the written down value of the assets in the hands of the transferor company, namely M/s Deltron Ltd. and excess deprecation claimed by the assessee was worked out by the AO as under: Block WDV as on Cost of Depreciation Deprecia- Difference 1.4.2004 in the acquisition a…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. V. Madhusudhan Reddy, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 694/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.694/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. Sri V. Madhusudhan Reddy, 502, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038. ….. Respondent. Pan Abipv 7234L Appellant By : Shri G.R. Reddy, Cit (D.R) Respondent By : Ms. Preethi S. Patel, Advocate. Date Of Hearing : 6.10.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 9.10.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.4.2.2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, An Individual Deriving Income From Salaries, House Property & Money Lending, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2007-08 On 24.10.2007 Declaring Loss Of Rs.15,32,350. The Return Was Processed & The Case Was Subsequently Taken Up For Scrutiny.

For Appellant: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Ms. Preethi S. Patel, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263

…s. Nutrine Confectionary & Sweets Pvt. Ltd. in the assessee's case were not exigible to tax as capital gains. It was also contended that the decision of the Tribunal (supra), ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (154 ITR 148), by holding that the entire series of transactions by which the shares of M/s. Nutrine Confectionary & Sweets Pvt. Ltd., which were ultimately transferred to M/s. Godrej Beverage & Foods Ltd. were valid and that since such a course was permitted within the framework of law, the said transactions were not colorable or dubious or subterfuge, has n…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. D.K.G Company, New Delhi

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

ITA 4711/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23

…med authenticity of agreements with farmers, which are claimed to have been executed by the appellant. The Assessing Officer made reference to decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and in the case of MacDowell's and Co. 154 ITR 148. 5 ITA No. 4711/Del./2012 The appellant has furnished detailed submission in respect of each and every issue raised by the Assessing Officer which is extracted above. There is no dispute that there was development agreement between the appellant firm and Sh. D.D. Goel which was executed on 15/06/2006. In terms of the said agreement, the assessee…