Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal Disallows Interest Payments for Tax Avoidance Scheme</h1> <h3>Kantilal Manilal & Co. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax</h3> The tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest payments to M/s. Emjey Enterprises and M/s. Kantilal Manilal & Co. Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the ... - Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of interest payment to M/s. Emjey Enterprises and M/s. Kantilal Manilal & Co. Pvt. Ltd.2. Consideration of credit balances obtained through journal entries for calculating interest payable.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Interest Payment to M/s. Emjey Enterprises and M/s. Kantilal Manilal & Co. Pvt. Ltd.:The assessee, a partnership firm, challenged the disallowance of interest payments amounting to Rs. 5,87,339 to M/s. Emjey Enterprises and Rs. 1,68,119 to M/s. Kantilal Manilal & Co. Pvt. Ltd. The assessee argued that the transactions were genuine business transactions and supported by relevant documentation. The partners had withdrawn money from their capital accounts and advanced it to the said firms, which in turn lent it back to the assessee-firm. The assessee contended that the transactions were legitimate and not intended to avoid tax, citing several judicial precedents to support their claim.The revenue, however, argued that the transactions were a colourable device intended solely to avoid the applicability of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, which disallows interest paid to partners. The money did not actually move and remained within the control of the assessee-firm, indicating that the transactions were pre-ordained with the sole purpose of reducing taxable profit.Upon review, the tribunal found that the transactions were indeed intended to avoid the provisions of section 40(b). The money remained with the assessee-firm, and the interest payments were merely routed through sister concerns to create an appearance of compliance with the law. The tribunal emphasized that the true nature of the transactions must be considered as a whole, rather than dissecting individual steps, citing the principle laid down in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO. The tribunal concluded that the transactions were a colourable device for tax avoidance and upheld the disallowance of interest payments.2. Consideration of Credit Balances Obtained Through Journal Entries for Calculating Interest Payable:The assessee also contested the CIT(A)'s decision to ignore the credit balances obtained through journal entries for calculating interest payable to M/s. Emjey Enterprises and M/s. Kantilal Manilal & Co. Pvt. Ltd. The assessee argued that the partners had the right to withdraw money from their capital accounts and deal with it as they wished, and that the transactions were genuine and acted upon.The tribunal, however, found that the partners had not actually withdrawn the money. Instead, journal entries were passed to show credit in the accounts of the sister concerns without any actual movement of funds. The tribunal noted that the money remained with the assessee-firm throughout the transactions, and the interest payments to the sister concerns were effectively payments to the partners, disguised to avoid section 40(b).The tribunal dismissed the assessee's argument that the transactions were genuine and had been accepted in the income-tax assessments of the sister concerns. It emphasized that the assessment proceedings of the assessee and the sister concerns are independent, and the true intention and consequences of the transactions must be examined in the assessee's case. The tribunal concluded that the transactions were a colourable device for tax avoidance and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to ignore the credit balances obtained through journal entries for calculating interest payable.Conclusion:The tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the transactions were a colourable device for avoidance of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act. The interest payments to M/s. Emjey Enterprises and M/s. Kantilal Manilal & Co. Pvt. Ltd. were effectively payments to the partners and rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found