ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE5(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS L & T SHIPBUILDING LIMITED ), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for differential lease rental premium, stamp duty, and registration charges were directly connected to the transfer of the port undertaking as part of a slump sale. Therefore, these expenses were allowable deductions in computing the capital gains arising from the transfer.
What were the facts?
The assessee company claimed an additional expenditure of Rs. 82,59,94,515/- related to a slump sale of its port division. This expenditure was for differential lease rental premium and associated charges, which the assessee argued were necessary for the transfer. The Assessing Officer declined the claim, and the CIT(A) partly allowed it.
What were the issues?
Whether expenses incurred for differential lease rental premium and associated charges are allowable deductions in computing capital gains on a slump sale, and if such expenses crystallizing after the return filing date can be allowed in the year of transfer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal45 citing190 ITR 56 · 1991 · HC
- Sesa Goa Ltd. v. Addl.CIT4 citing430 ITR 114 · 2021 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & MS. PADMAVATHY S
Per Bench:
The appellant, M/s. Larsen & Tou
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 48
- Hansaben Babubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 4(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 2762/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Mukesh Mishra, Thane vs ACIT, Circle 1, ThaneITA 5853/MUM/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Dy. Commissioner of Income… vs Thomas Myladiyil Augustine, AhmedabadITA 1131/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Banwari, Bhiwadi vs ITO, BhiwadiITA 1710/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Reshma Dilip Ramrakhyani, Gandhidham vs ITO Ward 2 Gandhidham, GandhidhamITA 895/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026