How many judgments cite Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai (165 ITR 166), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 45(4), Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai

165 ITR 166Supreme Court of India1987#4457 most cited

What is Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai authority for?

When a partner retires from a partnership firm and receives consideration, including a proportionate share of goodwill, it is not considered a transfer for capital gains tax purposes.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai · CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai · retirement of partner · partnership asset · transfer · capital gains tax · section 45 · section 47 · goodwill

Sections most often in play

Section 45(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 132 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(2)Section 28(\u03bd)

Issues it is cited on

section 47 transfer of capital asset section 45 fair market value assistant commissioner undisclosed income section 153 section 153a section 132 transfer previous year person

Judgments citing Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai

ITO 18(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Laxmiben N Kakad, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3914/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Ito – 21(2)(2) Vs. Shri Anil Purushottam Kakad Room No.111, 1St Floor L/H. Of Late Smt. Laxmiben Piramal Chambers N.Kakad Parel 401, Ashish Wang, Mumbai Pochkhanwala Road Worli, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan/Gir No. Agypk5458L Appellant) .. Respondent) Co.No.20/Mum/2012 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3914/Mum/2011) (Assessment Year :2004-05)

Section 148Section 54E

…erest in partnership 7 ITA No.3914/Mum/2011 & CO No.20/Mum/2012 Laxmiben N Kakad firm was not taxable. The claim of the appellant is not tenable for two reasons. The appellant has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court's in the case of Mohanbhai Pannabhai 165 ITR 166 where in Supreme Court held that amount received by the partner on retirement would not be taxable. He has also relied upon the order of Chennai Tribunal in the case of a CIT Vs. Goel Dresses (2009) 30 DTR 70. However it is important to note that such a claim is not correct. Delhi High Court in the case of Bishanlal Kanodia Vs CIT 257 ITR 449 has…

Smt. Rama S. Gummadi vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)

ITTA/207/2005HC Telangana14 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

For Appellant: Dr. C.P. RamaswamyFor Respondent: Sri K. Raji Reddy

Section 47

…hukumar (3 supra). In our opinion the judgment in Lingamallu Raghukumar (3 supra) applies in all fours to the case on hand as the facts in both the cases are similar. 4 (1973) 91 ITR 393 (Guj) 5 (1987) 165 ITR 166 CVNR, J & KVL, J I.T.T.A. No.207 of 2005 5 In the light of the ratio in Lingamallu Raghukumar (3 supra), the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The questions of law raised in this appeal are accordingly answered in favour of the appellant-assessee. __________________________…

Kaushalya R Sampat, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3609/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Mrs. Kaushalya R. Sampat Income Tax Officer, Flat No.1A, Hill Top Society, 9(3)(2),Piramal Chambers, Pali Hill Road, Bandra(W) Vs. Lalbaug,Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400050 Pan No.Aaqps06609F Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri. K.Gopal, Ar Revenue By .. Shri. M.V. Rajguru, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 05-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 05-01-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 133ASection 144Section 148Section 68

…hnappa & Ors. [(1966) SC 1300]. The Supreme Court held that what is envisaged on the retirement of a partner is merely his right to realise his interest and to receive its value. What is realised is the interest which the partner enjoys in the assets during 4 165 ITR 166 the subsistence of the partnership by virtue of his status as a partner and in terms of the partnership agreement. Consequently, what the partner gets upon dissolution or upon retirement is the realisation of a pre- existing right or interest. The Supreme Court held that there was nothing strange in the law that a right or interest should exist i…

Ramesh Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1798/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR

Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…ed by the retiring partner for extinguishment of his interest in a particular asset." 14. The appeal against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court was dismissed by a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 . The Supreme Court relied upon its judgment in Sunil Siddharthbhai v.CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509. The Supreme Court reiterated the same principle by relying upon the judgment in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa AIR 1966 SC 1300. The Supreme Court held that what is envisaged on the retirement of a partner is merely his right to realise his…

Ramesh Builders (India), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1797/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR

Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

Anant B. Tawade, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6362/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6362/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Anand B. Tawade, Ito – 17(3)(1), बनाम/ 106, Roop Rayon Mill Piramal Chambers, V. Compound, Lalbaug, Near Datt Mandir, Mumbai. Jijamata Nagar, Kalachowki, Mumbai – 400 033. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Acdpt 9937A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)

…any, arising to the retiring partner from receipt of such money. It was submitted that there was no distribution of assets, but only payment of money. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai (1987) 165 ITR 166 (SC), CIT v. Lengmally Raghukumar (2001) 247 ITR 801 (SC). The assessee also relied upon the following judicial decisions:- 1) Addl. CIT v. Snt Mahenderpal Bhasin (1979) 117 ITR 26 (All). 2) CIT v. Bhupinder Singh Atwal (1981) 128 ITR 67 (Cal). 3) CIT v. Madanlal Bharqava (1980) 122 ITR 545 (All). 4) CIT v. Pate P H (1988) 171 ITR 128 (AP). 5) C…