Twinstar Holdings Ltd. v. DCIT

207 ITR 639High Court1994#9057 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

long term capital gainslong term capital gainprevious yeartransfersection 143personcompanysection 14section 143(3)indianfacbusiness

Judgments citing Twinstar Holdings Ltd. v. DCIT

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…a Development Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Panipat Woollen& General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC) 8.21 Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Nayantara G. Agrawal vs.CIT [1994] 207 ITR 639 (Bom.) …. 8.22 Further, reliance is placed on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it is held that when the assessee is indulged in evasion of taxes by employing colourable devices, court can remove the veil to find out the real nature of the transaction: 1. McDowell and Co. Ltd. vs. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) 2. CIT vs.…

BLACKSTONE FP CAPITAL PARTNERS MAURITIUS V LTD.,MAURITIUS vs. DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 981/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 154

…le Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co Ltd Vs CTO [(1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC)] and referred to certain other decisions, namely- Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT (34 ITR 888), by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Navantara G Agarwal Vs CIT [(1994) 207 ITR 639 (Bom)] and CIT Vs Akshav Textile Trading Agencies Ltd [(2007) 304 ITR 401 (Bom)]. The Assessing Officer thus concluded that by applying the principles emerging out of these judicial precedents, it is clear that the assessee company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Blackstone FP Capital (Mauritius) VA Ltd Cayman Islands, that it has no independent…

BLACKSTONE FP CAPITAL PARTNERS MAURITIUS V LTD.,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT INTL TAX CIR.1(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1725/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 154

…le Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co Ltd Vs CTO [(1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC)] and referred to certain other decisions, namely- Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT (34 ITR 888), by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Navantara G Agarwal Vs CIT [(1994) 207 ITR 639 (Bom)] and CIT Vs Akshav Textile Trading Agencies Ltd [(2007) 304 ITR 401 (Bom)]. The Assessing Officer thus concluded that by applying the principles emerging out of these judicial precedents, it is clear that the assessee company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Blackstone FP Capital (Mauritius) VA Ltd Cayman Islands, that it has no independent…

SHRI RAMASWAMY SHIVARAMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC - 1 (1),, CHENNAI

ITA 571/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.571/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 54F

…the transaction is a device to avoid tax, and whether the transaction is such that the judicial process may accord its approval to it - Courts can remove the veil to find out the real nature of the transaction" in the case of Nayantara G. Agrawal Vs CIT (Bom) 207 ITR 639. 2.13 Thus, as per all the discussions: made supra, along with the support of various judgements over the years, it can be seen that the claim of 54F Deduction as well as the claim of Short Term Capital Loss-arise out of sham transactions and are therefore liable to :: 8 :: be disallowed. Thus, the amount Claimed as deduction under section 54F,…

ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground No

ITA 1942/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43BSection 92BSection 92C(2)

…as Essar Investments Ltd.) (v) Hackbridge Hewittic & Easun Ltd v GEC Distribution Transformers Ltd, (1992) 74 Comp Cas 543 (Mad) (vi) U.K. Mehra v Union of India, (1997) 88 Comp Cas 213 (vii) CITv Dalmia L N. 207 ITR 89 (Cal) (viii) Nayantara G Agarwal v CIT, 207 ITR 639 (Bom) (ix) Hela Holdings Private Limited v CIT, 263 ITR 129 (Cal) etc. 4.34 Accordingly in view of the above discussion, we hold that the transaction of subscription of 500000 shares in February 2010 and its sale in March 2010 is a sham transaction. Hence, the entire Short term capital Loss of Rs. Rs.1,83,06,38,227/- is directed to be disallowed…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GULSHAN CHEMICALS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1524/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1523/Del/2015 :Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1524/Del/2015 :Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs M/S Gulshan Chemicals Ltd., Circle-10(2), E-12, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg4002H

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. N. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…e assessment order was correctly added. Further, the findings as above also find support from the judicial decisions which are quite relevant are briefly mentioned as under: (i) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held in the case of Nayan Tara G. Agrawal vs. CIT, 207 ITR 639, that what is to be considered is to whether the transactions is a device to avoid tax and that the Court cap remove the veil to find out the real nature of the transaction. (ii) The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi has held in the case of Harsh V. Cbaddha legal heir of Late W.N. Chaddha Vs. DDIT (Intl. Tax), 135 TTJ 513, that the tax liability in the case o…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GULSHAN CHEMICALS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1523/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1523/Del/2015 :Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1524/Del/2015 :Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs M/S Gulshan Chemicals Ltd., Circle-10(2), E-12, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg4002H

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. N. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…e assessment order was correctly added. Further, the findings as above also find support from the judicial decisions which are quite relevant are briefly mentioned as under: (i) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held in the case of Nayan Tara G. Agrawal vs. CIT, 207 ITR 639, that what is to be considered is to whether the transactions is a device to avoid tax and that the Court cap remove the veil to find out the real nature of the transaction. (ii) The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi has held in the case of Harsh V. Cbaddha legal heir of Late W.N. Chaddha Vs. DDIT (Intl. Tax), 135 TTJ 513, that the tax liability in the case o…

DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4592/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…he beneficiaries are residents of India. The ld. DR in defense of his arguments relied upon the series of decisions as under : i) McDowell and Co Ltd -154 ITR 148 (SC); ii) Twinstar Holdings Ltd V/s DCIT – 260 ITR 0006 (Bom); iii) Nayantara G Agarwal V/s CIT -207 ITR 639 (Bom); iv) Onam Agarbathi Co V/s DCIT-310 ITR 56 (Kar); v) Pravinbhai M Kheni V/s ACIT -28 taxmann.com 111(Guj); vi) CIT V/s Rothman Cycle Ind. Pvt.Ltd (2011) 203 taxman 302; vii) CIT V/s Bharti Devi Sarabhi -231 ITR 526 (SC); viii) Moti Trust Kota vs Commr. Of Income Tax, 1999 236 ITR 37 SC, The ld. DR filed detailed written submissions and fi…

DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…he beneficiaries are residents of India. The ld. DR in defense of his arguments relied upon the series of decisions as under : i) McDowell and Co Ltd -154 ITR 148 (SC); ii) Twinstar Holdings Ltd V/s DCIT – 260 ITR 0006 (Bom); iii) Nayantara G Agarwal V/s CIT -207 ITR 639 (Bom); iv) Onam Agarbathi Co V/s DCIT-310 ITR 56 (Kar); v) Pravinbhai M Kheni V/s ACIT -28 taxmann.com 111(Guj); vi) CIT V/s Rothman Cycle Ind. Pvt.Ltd (2011) 203 taxman 302; vii) CIT V/s Bharti Devi Sarabhi -231 ITR 526 (SC); viii) Moti Trust Kota vs Commr. Of Income Tax, 1999 236 ITR 37 SC, The ld. DR filed detailed written submissions and fi…

ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI vs. KIRAN AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1055/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…he beneficiaries are residents of India. The ld. DR in defense of his arguments relied upon the series of decisions as under : i) McDowell and Co Ltd -154 ITR 148 (SC); ii) Twinstar Holdings Ltd V/s DCIT – 260 ITR 0006 (Bom); iii) Nayantara G Agarwal V/s CIT -207 ITR 639 (Bom); iv) Onam Agarbathi Co V/s DCIT-310 ITR 56 (Kar); v) Pravinbhai M Kheni V/s ACIT -28 taxmann.com 111(Guj); vi) CIT V/s Rothman Cycle Ind. Pvt.Ltd (2011) 203 taxman 302; vii) CIT V/s Bharti Devi Sarabhi -231 ITR 526 (SC); viii) Moti Trust Kota vs Commr. Of Income Tax, 1999 236 ITR 37 SC, The ld. DR filed detailed written submissions and fi…

ACIT CIR 21(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE MICHIGAN JV -MITHI RIVER, MUMBAI

ITA 6690/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Ashwani Taneja () - Ay 2009-10 - Ay 2010-11

…made an attempt to make diversion of profit therefore, AO has rightly assessed the income arising from 4 Reliance Michigan JV contract in the hands of assessee. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nayantara vs CIT 207 ITR 639 (Bom) and on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Ch. Achaiah 218 ITR 239 (SC) in support of his proposition. 5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel of the assessee vehemently supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is speaking and well reasoned and based upon facts of the case. It was s…

ITO, WARD - 56(2), KOLKATA, 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

…nge and the transfer claimed was a sham transfer. The aforesaid decision was therefore not applicable to the facts of the case of the Assessee. The CIT(A) held that the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Nayantara O. Agarwal vs. CIT 207 ITR 639 (Bom) and decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shekhawati Rajputana Trading Co (P) Ltd. 236 ITR 950 (Cal), were not applicable to the case of the Assessee, as the transactions in those cases were collusive in nature and not a real transaction with unrelated parties, as in the case of the Assessee. Similarly, the CIT(…