Me Dowel & Co.Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer

154 ITR 48Supreme Court of India1985#13476 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Me Dowel & Co.Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

…as the decision of the Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2012] 204 Taxman 408 / 17 taxmann.com 202 is concerned, the Court considered its decisions in the matters of Mc Dowell& Co. Ltd. v. 'Commercial Tax Officer (1985] 154 ITR 48/22 Taxman 11 (SC), Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2004] 10 SCC 1 and the Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SC 667 and concluded that where the transaction is not genuine but a colourable device there could be no question of tax planning. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case after considering the aforesaid two decisio…

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…he decision of the Supreme Court in Vodafone 32 International Holdings 8. V. v. Union of India [1012] 204 Taxman 408 /17 taxmann.com 202 is concerned, the Court considered its decisions -in the matters of Me bowell A Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 48/22 Taxman 11 (SC), Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2004] 10 SCC1 and the Mathuram Agarwai v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999] 8 SCC 667 and concluded that were the transaction is not genuine but a colourable device there could be no question of tax planning. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case after considering the aforesaid two decision…

DCIT - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Samanta Organics P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3229/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 To 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 80G

…r as the decision of the Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 204 Taxman 408 / 17 taxmann.com_202 is concerned, the Court considered its decisions in the matters of Mc Dowell& Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 48/22 Taxman 11 (SC), Union of India v. AzadiBachaoAndolan [2004] 10 SCC 1 and the Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999] 8 SCC 667 and concluded that where the transaction is not genuine but a colourable device there could be no question of tax planning. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case after considering the aforesaid two decision…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar vs. M/S. Deep Recycling Ind., Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 324/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Praveen Verma, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.R

Section 10BSection 10B(4)

…t it amounts to tax evasion in the hands of the partners by passing on interest/remuneration in the guise of share of profits and it is colourable device as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Me Dowel & Co.Ltd. V/s. Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 48 (SC)? [C] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the 'Appellate Tribunal was right in accepting assessee's deliberate and unjustified claim of not paying interest to partners and ignoring their obligation to pay interest to the partners which was authorized as per the partnership deed and was due within the parameters of the pro…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Jamnagar vs. M/S. Deep Recycloing Industries, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 367/RJT/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Praveen Verma, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.R

Section 10BSection 10B(4)

ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Babulal U Munot, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4506/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Ito-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19Th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpm5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 7.5% Of Non-Genuine Purchase Claimed By The Assessee A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…ar as the decision of the Supreme Court in Vodafone international Holdings 8.V. v Union of India [2012] 204 Taxman 408 / 17 taxmann com 202 is concerned, the Court considered its decisions in the matters of Me Dowel! & Co. Ltd. v Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 48/22 Taxman 11 (SC), Union of india v. Azadi Bacrtao Andolan [2004] 10 SCC 1 and the Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999] 8 SCC 667 and concluded that where the transaction is not genuine but a colourable device there could be no question of fax planning The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case after considering the aforesaid two decisi…

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

…as the decision of the Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings B. V. v. Union of India [2012] 204 Taxman 408 / 17 taxmann.com 202 is concerned, the Court considered its decisions in the matters of Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 48/22 Taxman 11 (SC), Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2004] 10 SCC 1 and the Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999] 8 SCC 667 and concluded that wl2ere the transaction is not genuine but a colourable device there could be no question of tax planning. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case after considering the aforesaid two decis…