Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Pankti Polytex Pvt. Ltd. on 11 February, 2020 cites

Union Of India And Anr vs Azadi Bachao Andolan And Anr on 7 October, 2003

16. As explained by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Banyan & Berry (supra) and approved by Hon. Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. (supra) that even by the decision in the case of McDowell, the freedom of the citizen to act in a manner according to his requirements, his wishes in the manner of doing any trade, activity or planning his affairs with circumspection, within the framework of law has not been affected. If such trade, activity or planning falls within the frame work of law, the same cannot be discarded unless that falls in the category of colourable device which may properly be called a device or a dubious method or subterfuge clothed with apparent dignity. Thus the assessee is free to act in a manner according to his requirements, his wishes in the manner of doing any trade, activity or planning his affairs with circumspection and which is within the framework of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 94 - Cited by 747 - Full Document

The Addl. Cit, Sr-8 vs Pinnacle Project And Infrastrcture ... on 24 March, 2006

"11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. The borrowing of funds and utilization thereof for the purpose of business activity of the assessee is not disputed even by A.O. The only objection of AO is that the borrowed funds were utilized by the assessee for the purpose of purchasing shares of group companies, and, therefore, the principle laid down by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd.(supra) was applicable. It is, therefore, the A0 has disallowed the interest being a device adopted by assessee for reducing its income. One other ground on which the Assessing Officer proceeded to disallow the claim of interest is the applicability of provisions of section 77 of Companies Act, 1956.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Banyan And Berry vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 21 December, 1995

16. As explained by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Banyan & Berry (supra) and approved by Hon. Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. (supra) that even by the decision in the case of McDowell, the freedom of the citizen to act in a manner according to his requirements, his wishes in the manner of doing any trade, activity or planning his affairs with circumspection, within the framework of law has not been affected. If such trade, activity or planning falls within the frame work of law, the same cannot be discarded unless that falls in the category of colourable device which may properly be called a device or a dubious method or subterfuge clothed with apparent dignity. Thus the assessee is free to act in a manner according to his requirements, his wishes in the manner of doing any trade, activity or planning his affairs with circumspection and which is within the framework of law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 87 - Full Document
1