B.T. Patil & Sons. v. CGT

247 ITR 588Supreme Court of India2001#23939 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing B.T. Patil & Sons. v. CGT

Mahul Constructoin Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2784/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Mahul Construction Income Tax Officer, Corporation Ward 31(2)(3), M/S Thar & Co. Chartered Room No. 704, C-11, Accountants, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. 203, Capri, Opp. Hdil Tower, Bnadra Kurla Complex, Anant Kanekar Mar, Bandra Bandra (East), (East), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 051 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aamfm5810E

For Appellant: K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Jacinta zimik Vashai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 45(4)

…y note that the partnership was subsisting and an asset of the partnership was made the absolute ownership of one of the subsisting partners." 18. We find that this judgment came up for consideration before the apex Court in B. T. Patil & Sons vs. CGT [2001] 247 ITR 588 (SC), upholding the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The apex court observed as under: “ In our view, when there is dissolution of a partnership or a partner retires and obtains in lieu of his interest in the "firm, an asset of the firm, no transfer is involved... But the position is different when, during I/ic subsistence of a partnership,…

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)

…TA 1798/Mum/2012 note that the partnership was subsisting and an asset of the partnership was made the absolute ownership of one of the subsisting partners. 18. This judgment came up for consideration before the Apex Court in B.T. Patil & Sons v. CGT [2001] 247 ITR 588 upholding the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The Apex Court observed as under : "In our view, when there is a dissolution of a partnership or a partner retires and obtains in lieu of his interest in the firm, an asset of the firm, no transfer is involved. But the position is very different when, during the subsistence of a partnership, an…

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

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)

…TA 1798/Mum/2012 note that the partnership was subsisting and an asset of the partnership was made the absolute ownership of one of the subsisting partners. 18. This judgment came up for consideration before the Apex Court in B.T. Patil & Sons v. CGT [2001] 247 ITR 588 upholding the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The Apex Court observed as under : "In our view, when there is a dissolution of a partnership or a partner retires and obtains in lieu of his interest in the firm, an asset of the firm, no transfer is involved. But the position is very different when, during the subsistence of a partnership, an…

B.T. Patil & Sons. v. CGT (247 ITR 588) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax