CADD Centre v. ACIT

383 ITR 258High Court2016#24770 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 363,016 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Judgments citing CADD Centre v. ACIT

Ram Krishan Kulwant Rai, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1047/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1047/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 132Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 4

…Section 47(xiii) is not violated. According to the Ld. counsel, there was no benefit received by the shareholders or the erstwhile partners either directly or indirectly. 7. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CADD Centre v. ACIT (2016) 383 ITR 258, the Ld.counsel submitted that in the case before the Madras High Court as in the case before us, the private limited company succeeded to the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm. All the partners of the firm immediately before the succession became the shareholders of the company in the same proportion in which their capital stood in…

Supermax Personal Care P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

ITA 6107/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-CIT-DR
Section 143Section 2(47)Section 254(1)Section 9Section 9(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ केकेकेके” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, संदीप एवं संदीप संदीप गोसांई संदीप गोसांई गोसांई, "याियक गोसांई "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6107/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Su…

M/S. Bhaggyam Builders, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2614/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2614/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bhaggyam Builders, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 20, Raman Street, Vs. Income Tax, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle -1, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 2(47)Section 45Section 45(1)Section 45(4)

…), 241 ITR 668(Mad) submitted that during the subsistence of partnership, no immovable property of the firm can be transferred to partners by mere book entries and such transfer required registration etc. Further, the AR relying on the decision reported in 383 ITR 258 (Mad) wherein it is held that when partnership firm is transferred into a company , there is no transfer of capital asset as contemplated by section 45(1) and hence submitted that the impugned transaction is not a :-4-: transfer. Further, the AR relying on this tribunal decision in the case of ACIT vsGoyal Dresses in ITA No. 1478/Mds/2007 for a…

CADD Centre v. ACIT (383 ITR 258) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax