← All Phrases

“dubious device”

Judicial DoctrinesMcDowellMcDowell8 judgments

BHIKHALAL PRAHALADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 780/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

provisions of law. 11. On merit, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that it is a case of penny stock and dubious devices were adopted by the assessee to evade the payment of tax and therefore, the assessee’s transactions are bogus, as the assessee failed to prove

BHIKHALAL PRAHLADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 779/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

provisions of law. 11. On merit, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that it is a case of penny stock and dubious devices were adopted by the assessee to evade the payment of tax and therefore, the assessee’s transactions are bogus, as the assessee failed to prove

ACIT-2(1)(1),MUMBAI, 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

transaction has to be evaluated keeping in view the substance of a transaction. If the form of the transaction points to a dubious device, the said transaction needs to yield to substance of the transaction. 11 Shri Vallabh Roopchand Bhansali, 14. In these circumstances and facts on record we uphold

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

assessing officer has to find out as to whether the deposit/gift/cash credit is a result of any collusion, is a result of any dubious device employed by the assessee, is a result of any subterfuge, which is aimed at evasion of tax. Therefore, even the cash credits by near

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 130/BANG/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

nalready been laid down by the Supreme Court earlier except that the law regarding\ntax evasion was restated in much stronger expressions such as “dubious device”,\n“subterfuge”, “colourable transaction”, etc. The judgement did not permit the\nincome-tax authorities to re-write or make a new contract ... different from the intention professed in the document, the income-tax\nauthorities are at liberty to brand the same as a subterfuge or a dubious device or\na colourable transaction.\nOur attention was drawn to the decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts\nrendered after the judgement in McDowell

ACIT, CIR-1(3), SURAT vs. PRAVIN PANNALAL SHAH, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pravin Pannalal Shah Lal Bunglow, Athwalines, Income-Tax, Circle-1(3, Vs. Surat-395007 Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Hajira Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrps 1045 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

amount gifted to the assessee, the A.O. has not led any iota of evidence to prove that the gift was collusive or a dubious device or a subterfuge to evade tax. The assessee did not have such income so as to collude with a Nepal Resident and adopt a dubious

SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 258/ASR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 250oSection 68

declaration from donor was also filed by assessee - (CAL.) Whether when there was no proof that gift was collusive or a dubious device or a subterfuge to evade tax, amount of gift could be assessed in assessee’s hands - Held, no - Whether, since amount of gift was not credited

BRACE IRON & STEEL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-2,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 8617/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Lakshya Budhira, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

disallowed by the A.O. only on the basis of the illegal and erroneous finding that when the entire SCBL transaction is a colourable and/or dubious device and/or a paper transaction, then the issue of interest expenses incurred with reference to the same also should not be allowed to the Assesses