← All Phrases

“substance over form”

Judicial DoctrinesAzadi BachaoAzadi Bachao176 judgments

The decision most relied on for substance over form is McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (154 ITR 148), cited in 741 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on substance over form

McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO
154 ITR 148 · 1985 · Supreme Court
741
citing judgments

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.

Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India
6 SCC 613 · 2012 · Supreme Court
216
citing judgments

Tax planning is legitimate only if it is within the framework of law. Colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning, and it is wrong to encourage avoiding tax through dubious methods.

Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT
113 ITD 377 · 2008 · ITAT
97
citing judgments

The assessee must explain the nature and source of any sum credited in their accounts, including bank statements, and mere book entries or banking channels without financial capacity are insufficient to prove genuineness under Section 68. The case also holds that wrong quoting of a section is not fatal to proceedings, emphasizing substance over form.

CIT v. Motors & General Stores
66 ITR 692 · 1967 · Supreme Court
66
citing judgments

Income tax authorities cannot deduce the nature of a document from purported intention, go behind the document, consider the substance over form, or rewrite it merely to suit the revenue's purpose.

Income Tax Vs. India Discount Co. Ltd. 75 ITR 191 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Provincial Farmers (P) Ltd.
245 ITR 421 · 2000 · Supreme Court
55
citing judgments

The entry in the books of accounts is not determinative of the true nature of a transaction for income tax purposes; the substance of the transaction, rather than its accounting treatment, governs its taxability and deductibility.

277(D- E) and CIT v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation
225 ITR 703 · 1997 · Supreme Court
49
citing judgments

The ordinary principles of commercial accounting should be applied for ascertaining profits and gains, provided they do not contradict the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co.
357 ITR 396 · 2013 · High Court
48
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to credit for TDS even if the certificate is issued in the name of a joint venture or related party, provided the income to which the TDS relates is offered by the assessee. This principle emphasizes looking at the substance of the transaction over strict adherence to the name on the TDS certificate.

Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. v. Associated Rubber
157 ITR 77 · 1986 · Supreme Court
46
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that courts must look beyond the form to the substance of a transaction to discover the true state of affairs, especially when ingenuity is used to avoid tax and welfare legislations.

Judgments citing substance over form

Shailesh K Patel-HUF, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 288/Ahd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shailesh K. Patel Huf The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Ward – 3(3)(5), Vs. Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Time Square – I, Op. Ram Baug Bungalow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalhs9548E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Ketan Shah & Shri Aman Shah, अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. Dr 04/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 24.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 68

held in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (204 Taxman 408)(SC) that the Revenue may invoke the "substance over form" principle or "piercing the corporate veil" test after it is able to establish on the basis of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction

Instronics Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6643/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usinstronics Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 12 (1), 806, Devika Tower – 6, New Delhi. Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019. (Pan : Aaaci0163R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 Date Of Order : 05.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-4, New Delhi Dated 24.06.2019 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Provision Of Law, The Ld Cit Appeals Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld Ao U/S 143(3) Is Illegal, Bad In Law & Wrong On Facts. The Addition Sustained Is Unjust, Unlawful & Arbitrary & Are Made Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Provisions Of Law, The Ld Cit Appeals Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition On Account Of Disallowance Of Bad Debts Claimed Of Rs.53,11,956/- Ignoring The Fact That The Said Amount Is Irrecoverable & Eligible To Claim As Deduction U/S 36(1)(Vii) Of The It Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

this transaction being a transaction between two related entities needs to be tested on the principles of fairness and on the principles of substance over form. 6.1.5 In this regard, it is noted that the purpose of granted loan has not been mentioned by the appellant company anywhere. The appellant