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

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 262/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ur to the transaction. Various players including brokers, intermediaries, companies etc were involved. Statements of certain persons involved in the transaction were recorded which further established their bogus nature. He relied on the cases of Mcdowell Ltd 154 ITR 148(SC) & Sumati Dyal 214 ITR 801(SC)in support of the conclusion that these transactions were only colourable devise of tax evasion/avoidance. Preponderance of probabilities P a g e | 6 ITA No. 257, 261 & 262/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Hitesh Mangilal Jain emerging from the facts stated in the order clearly established that the impugned transa…

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 261/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ur to the transaction. Various players including brokers, intermediaries, companies etc were involved. Statements of certain persons involved in the transaction were recorded which further established their bogus nature. He relied on the cases of Mcdowell Ltd 154 ITR 148(SC) & Sumati Dyal 214 ITR 801(SC)in support of the conclusion that these transactions were only colourable devise of tax evasion/avoidance. Preponderance of probabilities emerging from the facts stated in the order clearly established that the impugned transactions were non genuine. 8. The ld.CIT(A) after due consideration of the facts observed t…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai

ITA 257/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 602/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.600, 601 & 602/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Pvt. Ltd., The ITO, बना Chak Ban Rakh Tea Estate, Dharamshala (HP). म Near Tharoat Village, VPO Charri, VS Tehsil-Shahpur, Distt. Kangra (HP). "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AADCK8100B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate राज"व…

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 601/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 600/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

ACIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ranu Vohra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 412/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am A.Y. 2016-17 Acit, Ranu Vohra, Circle 4(1)(1), 701 A Wing, Lodha Mumbai Bellissmo Building, N.M. Joshi Marg, Vs. Mahalaxmi, 400011 Co No.124/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 [In Ita No.412/Mum/2024] Ranu Vohra, Acit, 701 A Wing, Lodha Circle 4(1)(1), Bellissmo Building, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, 400011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aaepv 7672H Assessee By Shri Rahul Sarda Revenue By Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2024

…ding that the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 9,11,83,666/- on account of STCL on sale of shares of M/s Mindtree Ltd. is fair and justified, failing to appreciate the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. vs. СТО (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) wherein the Apex Court in its judgement has mentioned 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 resorting to dubious methods?" 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which may be necessa…

DCIT, Circle- 27(2), New Delhi vs. Wharton Engineers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Wilful Finance Investment Co. Pvt.), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7841/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit Vs. Wharton Engineers & Circle 27 (2) Developers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi (Earlier Willful Finance Investment Co.Pvt.) New Delhi Pan No.Aaacw0629C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT Vs. Wharton Engineers and Circle 27 (2) Developers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi (Earlier willful Finance Investment Co.Pvt.) New Delhi PAN No.AAACW0629C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Arvind Trivedi, Sr. DR. Respondent by Sh. Sanjiv Chaudhary, CA Sh. V.K. Garg, CA Sh. Parveen Kumar, CA Date of hearing: 19/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 27 /11/2024 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the revenueis directed against the ord…

Ravindra Khandelwal, Akola vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle Akola, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 403/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 36Section 68Section 69A

…short duration and repaid during the same year because in such a scenario, creditworthiness and genuineness of these transactions has to be proved beyond doubt and the onus lies on assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (S.C) has observed 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 hones…

Shri Anilkumar M. Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2239/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…penny stock. This stock in Alpha Graphic India Limited were acquired by the assessee in public issue in 1996 and sold by the assessee in July 2011. The Ld. AR further submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MC Dowell & Co. vs. CTO, 154 ITR 148 (SC) is not applicable in assessee’s case. The Ld. AR quoted the citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court being 99 ITR 135 and 224 ITR 362 and stated that in case of the assessee there is no information or material relating to the assessee at all and it was the proceedings against Alpha Graphic India Limited and there was no incriminating material a…

ITO-22(1)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Gehrilal Rooplal Paliwal, Andheri East

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

ITA 3614/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 68

…Vs. Durga Prasad H2 ITR $40 (SC) and SumatiDayal Vs. CIT (1995) 2141TR 801 (SC). (x) The purchases from hawala operator falls within the ambit of the term colourable devices and the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in the case of McDowell and Co. I td. 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 method. It is obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to sub…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 1496/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2003-2004

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 40Section 80H

…ssessee behind drafting the agreements between the assessee and the financial institution was to reduce the tax liability artificially of both the parties and as such the ratio of the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of McDowell Ltd. v. CTO[1985]154 ITR 148(SC) has wrongly been, interpreted" The Hon'ble High Court rejected the appeal of Revenue by holding as under: 3. "Only contention raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue is that the machinery was integral part of the boilers and the same continued to be with the assessee in spite of sale. The fact remains that the sale consideration was rec…

Tyco Electronics Singapore Pte Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle- Int. Tax. 3(1)(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1760/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Tyco Electronics Singapore Vs Dcit, Pte Limited, Circle Intl. Taxation Te Park-22B, Doddenakundi 3(1)(1), 2Nd Phase Industrial Area, Delhi. Whitefield Road, Bengaluru – 560 048, Karnataka. Pan: Aadct9910C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate & Ms Somya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, It-Dr & Shri Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By Assessing Officer, Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, IT-DR &

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tyco Electronics Singapore Vs DCIT, Pte Limited, Circle Intl. Taxation TE Park-22B, Doddenakundi 3(1)(1), 2nd Phase Industrial Area, Delhi. Whitefield Road, Bengaluru – 560 048, Karnataka. PAN: AADCT9910C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate & Ms Somya Jain, CA Revenue by : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, IT-DR & Shri Anshul, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SH…

ACIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Sml Isuzu Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the impugned order is sustained and appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 611/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 251Section 253Section 43B

…o duty was leviable on closing WIP in the first instance inasmuch as excise Duty is payable only on 'manufactured goods' and that too only when such goods are moved out of the factory/excise border of the manufacturer [refer Mc. Dowell & Company Ltd. vs. CTO: 154 ITR 148 (SC); C1T vs. Groz Beckert Asia Ltd: 296 ITR 401 (P&H). 11. Issue squarely covered  11. It is further respectfully submitted that the aforesaid issue of ad-hoc inclusion of excise duty in the value of closing WIP now stands covered in favour of the assessee vide order dated 14.05.2018 passed in assessee's own case for assessment year(s) 2005-06…

Balram Chainrai, Mumbai vs. Int Tax, Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153Section 271(1)(c)

…n his business which he did within the four corners of law. Mere tax planning without any motive to evade taxes through colourable devices is not frowned upon even by the judgment of the apex Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126: (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC). Paragrapha 18 and 20 of the Judgment of the apex Court in CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brukers (P) Ltd. (2010) 233 CTR (SC) 42: (2010) 41 DTR (SC) 233: (2010) 192 Taxman 211 (SC) read as under: "18. The next point which arises for determination in whether the 'loss' pertaining to exempted income was deductible against the chargeable income…

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Vallabh Roopchand Bhanshali, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 889/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyalacit Circle 2(1) (1), R. No. 575, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 020. ...... Appellant Vs. Shri Vallabh Roopchand Bhansali, 18Th Floor, 191, Dongarsi Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400 006 Pan: Aabpb4198H ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ankush Kapoor, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri C. Balaram Murthy, Ld. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 250

…Loss artificially by transfer the shares to his sister concern in order to offset current and future gains against losses as mentioned (supra). 6 Shri Vallabh Roopchand Bhansali, 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO, (1985) 3 SCC 230 has categorically held: - “45. 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 ho…

Shah Sandeep Anantkumar HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO-32(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4628/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KothariFor Respondent: Shri R.R.Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…Mishra (320 ITR 1), in which the Hon'ble Apex Court noted with grave concerned the rampant circulation of unaccounted money destroying the economy of our country. Further, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc Dowell Vs CTO (154 ITR 148) is also relied upon. In this land mark decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted with concern the colourable devices of tax planning. Considering the gamut of issues dealt with in the assessment order with which the undersigned concurs, the decision of the assessing officer is upheld and Grounds Nos. 2 to 5 in appeal are dismissed.” Being aggrieved…

Kaushik Chandravadan Parikh, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2064/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 68

…he market agent. This conclusion drawn is not based on any assumption, but, supported with all the evidences, facts and admissions by dummy clients leading to cartel of group entities.” m) Finally, the Ld. AO relied on the decisions of Mcdowell Ltd. Vs. CTO (154 ITR 148) (SC) for the proposition that tax planning is allowed under law, but not clourable devices created to give a colour of genuineness is permissible. n) The Ld. AO has made an addition of Rs. 331,61,224/- as unexplained income u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act. i) As the Ld. AO opined that all the tax exemptions are structured deals to get under tax ex…

Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 313/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,……………..………Appellant 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019 [Pan:Aacca1930G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.…Respondent Circle-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri N.S. Saini, A.R. & Priyanka Salarpuria, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ITA No. 313/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 313/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,……………..………Appellant 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019 [PAN:AACCA1930G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,.…Respondent Circle-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: Shri N.S. Saini, A.R. and Priyanka Salarpuria, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. CI…

Bajaj Holdngs & Investment Ltd ( Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…d. Vs. ACIT, Range 3(1) the agreements between the assessee and the financial institution was to reduce the tax liability artificially of both the parties and as such the ratio of the decision of the hon'bleapexcourt in the case of McDowell Ltd. v, CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) has wrongly been, interpreted" The Hon'ble High Court rejected the appeal of Revenue by holding as under: 3. "Only contention raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue is that the machinery was integral part of the bollers and the same continued to be with the assessee in spite of sale. The fact remains that the sale consideration was re…