McDowell & Co\nLtd v. CTO

47 CTR 126Reported decision1985#13163 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(35)Section 133ASection 148ASection 48Section 94(7)Section 97(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 94(7)record datesection 94section 10(33)section 10(35)azadi bachao andolanperiod of holdingtax benefitcolourable deviceorder under section 148a(d)section 11(1)section 48

Judgments citing McDowell & Co\nLtd v. CTO

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3002/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…ring the legality of the reopening, looked into implications of the provisions of section 94(7) having regards to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co 3001, 3002, 2990, 3000/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 Ltd vs CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon’ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3001/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…ring the legality of the reopening, looked into implications of the provisions of section 94(7) having regards to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co 3001, 3002, 2990, 3000/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 Ltd vs CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon’ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3000/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…ring the legality of the reopening, looked into implications of the provisions of section 94(7) having regards to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co 3001, 3002, 2990, 3000/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 Ltd vs CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon’ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands\ndismissed

ITA 2999/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20
Section 10(35)Section 133A

…as under consideration. Hon'ble\nCourt while considering the legality of the reopening, looked into\nimplications of the provisions of section 94(7) having regards to\nthe decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co\nLtd vs CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in\ncase of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr.\nreported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd.,\nreported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon'ble Court analysed identical\narguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by\nobservi…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI , MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2998/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…ring the legality of the reopening, looked into implications of the provisions of section 94(7) having regards to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co 3001, 3002, 2990, 3000/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 Ltd vs CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon’ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2996/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…ring the legality of the reopening, looked into implications of the provisions of section 94(7) having regards to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co 3001, 3002, 2990, 3000/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 Ltd vs CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon’ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2990/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…ring the legality of the reopening, looked into implications of the provisions of section 94(7) having regards to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co 3001, 3002, 2990, 3000/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 Ltd vs CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon’ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2988/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…ring the legality of the reopening, looked into implications of the provisions of section 94(7) having regards to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co 3001, 3002, 2990, 3000/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 Ltd vs CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon’ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as…