CIT 236 ITR 515 5) Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bom) 6) Chalasani Venkatsara Rao v. ITO

141 ITR 674High Court1983#11097 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 45(2)Section 45(4)Section 47(2)

Judgments citing CIT 236 ITR 515 5) Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bom) 6) Chalasani Venkatsara Rao v. ITO

M/S. Anand Diagnostic Laboratory, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 969/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Netrapal M S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143Section 143(3)

…ghts of the partners in a dissolved firm by allotment of its assets is not a transfer for a price. The facts of the instant case are identical with the facts of the case in CIT v. Bankey Lal Vaidya [1971] 79 ITR 594 (SC) . 21. In CIT v. L. Raghu Kumar [1983] 141 ITR 674/[1982] 11 Taxman 163 (A.P.), a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court followed the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393 (Guj.) and held that no transfer is involved when a retiring partner receives at the time of retirement from the firm, his share in the partnership assets either in cash or a…

M/S. Anand Diagnostic Laboratory, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 968/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Netrapal M S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143Section 143(3)

…ghts of the partners in a dissolved firm by allotment of its assets is not a transfer for a price. The facts of the instant case are identical with the facts of the case in CIT v. Bankey Lal Vaidya [1971] 79 ITR 594 (SC) . 21. In CIT v. L. Raghu Kumar [1983] 141 ITR 674/[1982] 11 Taxman 163 (A.P.), a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court followed the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393 (Guj.) and held that no transfer is involved when a retiring partner receives at the time of retirement from the firm, his share in the partnership assets either in cash or a…

Mdlr Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8215/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…TR 240 2) CIT Vs. Bankey Lal Vaidya 79 ITR 594 3) CIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 165 ITR166 4) Tribhuvan G. Patel Vs. CIT 236 ITR 515 5) Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bom) 6) Chalasani Venkatsara Rao Vs. ITO 349 ITR 423 (A) 7) CIT Vs. L. Raghu Kumar 141 ITR 674 (AP) 8) CIT Vs. P. H. Patel 171 ITR 128 (AP) 9) CIT Vs. G. Seshagiri Rao 213 ITR 304 (AP) 10) Bankey Lal Vaidya Vs. CIT 55 ITR 400 (All) 11) CIT Vs. Kunamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544 (Ker) 16. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that there is no estoppel against statue and mere declaration of capital gain in the return cannot…

Mdlr Builders P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8214/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…TR 240 2) CIT Vs. Bankey Lal Vaidya 79 ITR 594 3) CIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 165 ITR166 4) Tribhuvan G. Patel Vs. CIT 236 ITR 515 5) Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bom) 6) Chalasani Venkatsara Rao Vs. ITO 349 ITR 423 (A) 7) CIT Vs. L. Raghu Kumar 141 ITR 674 (AP) 8) CIT Vs. P. H. Patel 171 ITR 128 (AP) 9) CIT Vs. G. Seshagiri Rao 213 ITR 304 (AP) 10) Bankey Lal Vaidya Vs. CIT 55 ITR 400 (All) 11) CIT Vs. Kunamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544 (Ker) 16. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that there is no estoppel against statue and mere declaration of capital gain in the return cannot…

Smt. Savitri Kadur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 1700/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 2(47)Section 45Section 54E

…sh) 116-121 Page 19 of 23 6 CIT V Madan Lal Bhargava [1980] 122 ITR 545 (Allahabad) 122-125 7 ACIT Vs. Sri Mahinderpal Bhasin [1979] 117 ITR 26 (Allahabad) 126-129 8 CIT Vs. Krishnamoorthy [1998] 229 ITR 559 (Madras) 130-132 9 CIT Vs. L Raghu Kumar [1982] 141 ITR 674 (Andhra Pradesh) 133-136 10 CIT Vs. Lingmallu Raghukumar [2001] 247 ITR 801 (SC) 137-138 11 Tribhuvandas G Patel Vs. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 515 (SC) 139-141 12 CIT Vs. P.N Panjawani [2012] 356 ITR 676 (Karnataka) 142-152 13 CIT Vs. G Seshagiri Rao [1992] 65 Taxman 409 (Andra Pradesh 153-155 14 ACIT Vs. Unity Care & Health Services [2006] 103 ITD 5…

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

…reful perusal of the facts in Lingamallu Raghukumar (3 supra) reveals that the assessee was a partner and retired from the partnership firm after receiving the excess amount of Rs.46,500/-. This 1 (1983) 141 ITR 674 2 162 ITR 420 3 (2001) 247 ITR 801 CVNR, J & KVL, J I.T.T.A. No.207 of 2005 4 Court in Lingamallu Raghu Kumar (1 supra) held that there was no transfer of any assets defined in Clause (ii) of Section 47 of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, this Court had relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Mohanbha…

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)

…he terms of section 45 and, therefore, its transfer is not subject to income-tax under the head "Capital gains". In CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar [2001] 247 ITR 801 (SC), in respect of an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. L. Raghu Kumar [1983] 141 ITR 674 , the Apex Court once again ITA 1797/Mum/2012 & 19 ITA 1798/Mum/2012 reiterated that there is no element of transfer of interest in the partnership assets by the retired partner to the continuing partners. Reliance for that was placed in the judgment of CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393 (Guj.) which had been affirmed by the Apex Cou…

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)

…he terms of section 45 and, therefore, its transfer is not subject to income-tax under the head "Capital gains". In CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar [2001] 247 ITR 801 (SC), in respect of an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. L. Raghu Kumar [1983] 141 ITR 674 , the Apex Court once again ITA 1797/Mum/2012 & 19 ITA 1798/Mum/2012 reiterated that there is no element of transfer of interest in the partnership assets by the retired partner to the continuing partners. Reliance for that was placed in the judgment of CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393 (Guj.) which had been affirmed by the Apex Cou…

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)

…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) CIT v. Raghukumar (1983) 141 ITR 674 (AP) 6) Prashant S Joshi v. ITO (2010) 189 Taxman 1 (Bom) The A.O. observed that the assessee has received goodwill of Rs.75,53,858/- it was claimed as share of capital on retirement of partnership firm M/s Gurukripa Realtors. The AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to M/s Gurukripa Realtors and the said firm confirmed that firm has paid to t…