1964) 53 ITR 261 SC 2. Rajendra Babubhai Modi (1993) 200 ITR 98 (Guj HC) 3. CIT v. P.N. Panjawani

110 ITD 410Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#18704 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 45(4)Section 9BSection 45(3)

Judgments citing 1964) 53 ITR 261 SC 2. Rajendra Babubhai Modi (1993) 200 ITR 98 (Guj HC) 3. CIT v. P.N. Panjawani

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Manikandan, Chennai

ITA 2986/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2986/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. Manikandan, Vs. No.15/16/17, Vision Towers, 2Nd Floor, Yogam Garden, Valasarvakkam, Chennai - 600 087. Pan: Behpm 6583A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 16.02.2026 Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: आदेश / Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 26.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2 The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Of An Amount Of Rs.2,98,29,315/- Credited In Assessee'S Capital Account By M/S Crcl Llp, In Which Assessee Is A Partner, For Sacrificing / Relinquishing - 2 -:

Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

…same u/s 45(3) as Short Term Capital Gains. 3. In the relied upon decision of the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Gokulakrishna in ITA No.1088/Chny/2025, the Tribunal made a reference to the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Smt Paru D. Dave (110 ITD 410), wherein it was held that on realignment of profit sharing ratio, there is no relinquishment of any non-existent share in partnership assets since assets remained with the firm and therefore, no capital gain arises on realignment of a part of profit sharing ratio on introduction of new partners in the firm. The ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciate…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. Sathyabama Ramachandran, Alwarthirunagar

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghava Simhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasam, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…dents in support of their case: Sathyabama Ramachandran :- 5 -: 1. Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 261 SC 2. Rajendra Babubhai Modi (1993) 200 ITR 98 (Guj HC) 3. CIT v. P.N. Panjawani (2013) 21 taxmann.com 458 (Kar HC) 4. ITO v. Paru D. Dave (2008) 110 ITD 410 (Mumbai ITAT) 5. ITO v. Fine Developers (2012) 26 taxmann.com 202 (Mumbai ITAT) 6. Anik Industries Ltd. (2020) 116 taxmann.com 385 (Mumbai ITAT) 7. Radhu Palace v. ACIT (2014) 41 taxmann.com 281 (Mumbai ITAT) 8. ITA No.1088/Chny/2025 dated 17.06.2025 in the case of Gokulakrishna Vs The DCIT (Chennai Benches). These cases were cited to support the…

Indian Extrusions, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1994/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Indian Extrusions Acit-24(3) B-316/317, Virwani Industrial Vs. Mumbai. Estate,Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400 063 (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…e us, since in our view; the Assessing officer has not appreciated the applicable legal position. The legal position can be understood by referring to the various case laws relied during of course of hearing. The first decision referred is ITO v. Paru D. Dave 110 ITD 410 (Mum), whose, the relevant portion reads as under: "13. In a partnership amongst partners, each and every partner of the firm has an interest in each and every property of the partnership firm. Till the accounts are settled and the residue/surplus is not distributed amongst the partners, no partner can claim any share in such assets of the partne…

Asst CIT (OSD) -I Cen RG 7, Mumbai vs. Sukhraj B Nahar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year

ITA 5730/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Acit (Osd)-I, Shri Sukhraj B. Nahar, Central Range-7, B-1, Mahalaxmi Chambers, Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Vs. Mahalaxmi- 8, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400026 Pan: Aarpn9313R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri A. Mohan (Cit) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punamiya (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 18/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri A. Mohan (CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 28

…deleted the addition made by the AO. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition relying on the following judgments/orders: i) CIT vs. Hind Construction Ltd.1974 CTR 157(SC), ii) CIT vs. Kunnamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544, iii) ITO vs. Paru D Dave 110 ITD 410 Mum. ( Tribunal) , iv) DCIT vs. Manish M Chheda 29 SOT 138 Mum. (Tribunal) and v) Girish Textile Industries vs. ACIT 10 SOT, Mum (Tribunal) 8. The concluding para of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) reads as under: “12. In view of the above discussion, as also in view of the case laws discussed hereinabove, I hold that revaluation of…