“McDowell case”

Judicial DoctrinesMcDowellMcDowell10 judgments

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nShri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: \nDr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

circumstances to go behind the transfer of capital\nasset document to see the reality or real nature of transaction. The\napplicability of Mcdowell case, Durga Prasad Case and Sumati Dayals\ncase of Hon'ble Supreme Court are just not discussed. The courts in India\ndecide upon each case basis facts

DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(2), NEW DELHI vs. WHARTON ENGINEERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (EARLIER WILFUL FINANCE INVESTMENT CO. PVT.), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7841/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit Vs. Wharton Engineers & Circle 27 (2) Developers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi (Earlier Willful Finance Investment Co.Pvt.) New Delhi Pan No.Aaacw0629C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

McDowell and Co. Ltd. 154 ITR 148 (SC) which is totally misplaced and is not applicable on the facts of the Appellant. In McDowell case any device leading to tax avoidance was disapproved and it was held that colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning. Hon'ble Supreme Court

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

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

ITA 654/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri P R Mane

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 44

determine its true character. However, the legal effect of the transaction cannot be displaced by probing into the "Substance of the transaction". In McDowell case, it has been held clearly that the taxpayer cannot be allowed to get away with any colourable device or artificial sham transaction. Therefore, it becomes

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

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

ITA 653/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri P R Mane

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 44

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

every citizen to pay the taxes without resorting to subterfuges. The above observations should be read with para 46 where the majority holds: (McDowell case [(1985) 3 SCC 230: 1985 SCC (Tax) 391], SCC p. 255) “46. on this aspect one of us, Chinnappa Reddy, J., has proposed a separate

THR INFRASTRUCTURE PTE LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIR.-3(1)(1), INTL TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2022[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Fortis who has dominion over such transactions. Therefore, the conduit company i.e. assessee company shall not be provided treaty benefit. 7.2 In India, the McDowell case in 1985 had proceeded on the lines of Ramsay and Burmah Oil and referred to “colourable devices” and “dubious methods” to avoid ... McDowell case was effectively the trend setter in Indian jurisprudence to establish that the “ghosts of Fisher and Duke of Westminster” were not existent in India. It was felt then that India would be harsh with tax avoidance and an extremely thin line would run between how tax evasion

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 579/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

form given to the transaction by the assessee was a device to avoid taxes, and therefore, the dicta of the constitutional bench in McDowell case clearly applies to the present case?" (Included in 7) Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021 ITA No.1438/Mum./2021 10. Whether on the facts and circumstances

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

KRISHNA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 38(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 6356/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

scheme of things, in view of surrounding circumstances cannot be wished away behind the garb of meticulous documentation. The Supreme Court observation in the McDowell case befittingly supports the AO's view which stated that "colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning……”. 20 Krishan Devi There could

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

leasing only. The other decisions, particularly orders of the Tribunal relied on by the assessee were not applicable to the present case. • In Mcdowell case, His Lordship Justice Ranganath Misra held as under :- (page 171 of the report) "Tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework