CIT v. A.N.Naik Associates

265 ITR 346High Court2004#4990 most cited

What is CIT v. A.N.Naik Associates authority for?

Capital gains arising from the distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of persons, or otherwise, are taxable under section 45(4) based on the fair market value of the asset on the date of transfer. This applies even to reconstitutions of partnership businesses as part of a family settlement.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. A.N. Naik Associates · section 45(4) · capital gains · distribution of capital assets · dissolution of firm · reconstitution of partnership · fair market value

Also reported as

136 Taxmann 107

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 45(1)Section 45(4)Section 47(ii)

Judgments citing CIT v. A.N.Naik Associates

ABUSHA INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3417/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr.Bhabagrahi Dash, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45(1)Section 45(4)

…rket Value of the asset on the date of transfer would be deemed to be the full value of consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer. According to the Ld.AR, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of A.N. Naik Associates & Others reported in 265 ITR 346 (Bom.) had an occasion to analyze section 45, of which, we are concerned with sub-section (4), which reads as under: "(4) The profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals (not being a company or a co-oper…

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)

….f. 01.04.1988 and the decisions of the various authorities/Courts prior to the same are not proper precedents. This fact has been noted in the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. A.N. Naik Associates [2004] 265 ITR 346 (Bombay). The facts of this case and the decision therein are briefly noted below: The respondents in A. N. Naik Associates were parties to a family settlement dated January 30, 1997. Pursuant to the said family settlement, there was a deed of reconstitution of various partnership businesses of the family as set out under the family settlement. F…

ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 40, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 7189/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7189/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5234/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…on of the retiring partner assigning or relinquishing his share or right in the partnership and its assets in favor of the continuing partners. The coordinate bench chose to follow the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s A.N.Naik Associates (2004 265 ITR 346) and M/s Anik Industries Ltd. Assessment Years-2010-11 & 2012-13 distinguished the case law of Prashant B.Joshi V/s ITO (324 ITR 154). However, factual matrix is not the same here since the reconstitution deed do not envisages relinquishment of assessee’s right in the assets of the firm. Therefore, the said case law as well as the case law of CIT…

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

…s such. For the above proposition he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court of CIT Vs. Gurunath Talkies reported in 328 ITR 59 (Karnataka) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. A. K. Naik Associates reported in 265 ITR 346. He however noted from the retirement deed dated 28.11.2007 between M/s. MDLR Estate Private Limited, M/s. MDLR Builders Private Limited, Mr. Gopal Kumar, M/s. Vatika Limited and Mr. Anil Bhalla that sum infused by M/s. Vatika limited was Rs.112,00,00,000/- and not Rs.178.42 crores as held by the Assessing Officer. He, therefore, held that the…

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

…s such. For the above proposition he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court of CIT Vs. Gurunath Talkies reported in 328 ITR 59 (Karnataka) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. A. K. Naik Associates reported in 265 ITR 346. He however noted from the retirement deed dated 28.11.2007 between M/s. MDLR Estate Private Limited, M/s. MDLR Builders Private Limited, Mr. Gopal Kumar, M/s. Vatika Limited and Mr. Anil Bhalla that sum infused by M/s. Vatika limited was Rs.112,00,00,000/- and not Rs.178.42 crores as held by the Assessing Officer. He, therefore, held that the…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2008-09 Savitri Kadur, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, 4th Floor, Chitrapur Bhavan, Circle-9(1), 8th Main, 15th Cross, Bengaluru. Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560 055. PAN – ABYPK 8686R. APPELANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A Respondent by : Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 25.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03.05.2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the by the assessee…

ITO 16(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. RAMAL P. ADVANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6491/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Zaveri
Section 55F

…Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) opined that the provisions of section 45(4) of the Act will apply. 6. In this connection, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) referred to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. A. N. Naik 265 ITR 346. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the said amount received was a capital receipt not Ramal P. Advani taxable in the hands of the assessee. In this connection, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) referred to the certain other case laws from the Hon’ble Andhra Pradhesh High Court in the case of Chalasani Venkateswara Rao vs. I…

AMAR KANAYALAL NAGPAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1744/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Amar Kanayalal Nagpal, B-206, Ito, Ward-19 (2)(3), Mumbai. 2Nd Floor, Pioneer Residency-Ii, बिधम/ Daulat Nagar,Mumbai-400 054. Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…8 stands jeopardised. We find that our aforesaid view stands fortified by the P a g e | 11 ITA No. 1744/Mum/2012 AY: 2005-06 AMAR KANAYALAL NAGPAL Vs. ITO-19(1)(3). judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. A.N Naik Associates (2004) 265 ITR 346 (Bom). The High Court in its aforesaid judgment had observed that the result of the amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 1987 by omitting Sec. 47(ii), was that distribution of capital assets on dissolution of a firm would be regarded as a “transfer”. 8. We are of the considered view that in term of our aforesaid observations, as the case of…

ITO 25(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. FINE DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

ITA 5038/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Ito 25(3)(4) Vs. M/S. Fine Developers C-10, R.No.307, Dheeraj Apartment, Pratyakshkar Bhavan P.O.Dias Compound, Bandra Kurla Complex Natwar Nagar Bandra (E) Jogeshwari (E) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 067 Pan/Gir No. Aabff4545J Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 45(4)Section 48

…addition is untenable and unsustainable. 14. However, without considering the aforesaid proposed submission, the AO passed the Assessment Order on 15.12.2011. The AO relied on the 8 M/s. Fine Developers decision in case of CIT vs. A. N. Naik Associates [2004] 265 ITR 346 (Bom) to conclude that provisions of 45(4) are applicable not only in case of dissolution but also to the cases of subsisting partnership transferring the assets in favour of retiring partners. The term "otherwise" in sec, 45(4) read with "transfer of capital assets" by way of distribution of capital assets includes the transactions relating to "…

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)

…counsel for the Revenue relied on the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh, Bombay and Karnataka High Courts reported in Rajlaxmi Trading Co. vs. CIT (2001) 169 CTR (AP) 140 : (2001) 250 ITR 581 (AP), CIT vs. A.N. Naik Associates (2004) 187 CTR (Bom) 162 : (2004) 265 ITR 346 (Bom) and Suvardhan vs. CIT (2006) 206 CTR (Kar) 226 : (2006) 287 ITR 404 (Kar) respectively, counsel appearing for the assessees relied on the unreported decision of this Court in IT Ref. Nos. 235 and 236 of 1997, dt. 29th Feb., 2002 and that of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Vijayalakshmi Metal Industries (2002) 177 CTR (Mad) 43 : (2002) 256…

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)

….f. 01.04.1988 and the decisions of the various authorities/Courts prior to the same are not proper precedents. This fact has been noted in the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. A.N. Naik Associates (2014) 265 ITR 346 (Bombay). The facts of this case and the decision therein as briefly noted below: The response A.N. Naik Associates were parties to a family settlement dated January 30, 1997. Pursuant to the said family settlement, there was a deed of reconstitution of various partnership business of family as set out under the family settlement. For the assess…

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

…unt of appreciation was credited to the accounts of the partners. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 43,27,322/- was credited to the capital account of the assessee. The AO relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court delivered in CIT vs. A.N. Naik Association 265 ITR 346 treated the said amount taxable in the hands of the assessee and determined the income of the assessee at Rs.78,80,420/-. 3. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition relying on the judgments/orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Court and the Income Tax Tribunal. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the revenue has…

ITO, ALWAR vs. KUNDAN LAL BADSHAH, ALWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is disposed off with above directions

ITA 383/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Prithivi Raj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 50C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 383/JP/2014 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke The Income Tax Officer, Sh. Kundan Lal Badshah, Vs. Ward-1(1), Plot No.-109, Anand Nagar, Khairthal, Alwar. Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABOPB 2616 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Shri Prithivi Raj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee…

THE HINDUSTAN LUNGI COMPANY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, VELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 618/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate
Section 45(4)

…vs. ITO 349 ITR 423. ITA No.618/Mds/2016. :- 4 -: 5. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not impressed by the above arguments. According to him by virtue of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. A.N. Naik Associates 265 ITR 346, the word ‘’otherwise’’ used in Sec. 45(4) of the Act took into its sweep, not only cases of dissolution but also reconstitution of a partnership resulting in transfer of asset to a retiring partner. He held that Sec. 45(4) of the Act was correctly applied by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed the addition. 6. Now before me, ld. Authorise…

ACIT 18(2), MUMBAI vs. KESHAV & COMPANY, MUMBAI

ITA 6276/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 45(4)

…ed upon the words “or otherwise” appearing in the section 45(4) to canvass that it will cover the case where there is no dissolution and in support strong reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in A.N. Naik Associates (2004) 265 ITR 346. This entire controversy in hand before us and also the implication of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court while dealing with the words “otherwise” used in section 45(4) has been dealt and explained in detail by the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v Dynamic Enterprises, reported in [2003] 35…

KESHAV AND COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 18(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5639/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 45(4)

…ed upon the words “or otherwise” appearing in the section 45(4) to canvass that it will cover the case where there is no dissolution and in support strong reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in A.N. Naik Associates (2004) 265 ITR 346. This entire controversy in hand before us and also the implication of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court while dealing with the words “otherwise” used in section 45(4) has been dealt and explained in detail by the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v Dynamic Enterprises, reported in [2003] 35…

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)

…ir market value of the asset on the date of such transfer shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer.] (5)**** (6)****” Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. A.N.Naik Associates (2004) 265 ITR 346(Bom ) has held as under: “ Both these appeals can be disposed of by a common order as the facts involved are the same and similar questions of law arise. The respondents hereto were parties to a family settlement dated January 30, 1997. Pursuant to the said family settlement, there was a deed of reconstitution of various partnerships as set out…

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)

…ir market value of the asset on the date of such transfer shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer.] (5)**** (6)****” Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. A.N.Naik Associates (2004) 265 ITR 346(Bom ) has held as under: “ Both these appeals can be disposed of by a common order as the facts involved are the same and similar questions of law arise. The respondents hereto were parties to a family settlement dated January 30, 1997. Pursuant to the said family settlement, there was a deed of reconstitution of various partnerships as set out…

ACIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI vs. DINESH PARSHURAM AMIN, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5427/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal
Section 2(47)

…G Patel is no longer good law because the same was reversed by SC reported in 236 ITR 515. The facts of HR Aslot and NA Mody's case are similar to Tribhuvandas G Paters case, therefore, the same also impliedly overruled by Hon'ble SC. Further, CIT v A N Naik 265 ITR 346, word "Otherwise" in section 45(4) covers not only the cases of dissolution but also Associates cases of subsisting partners of a partnership transferring assets in favour of a' retiring partner. In this case new partners were inducted in morning and old partners retired on close of the business on that day. In para 27 of the order, it was (Bomba…

ACIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI vs. PARASHURAM MAGANLAL AMIN, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5426/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal
Section 2(47)

…G Patel is no longer good law because the same was reversed by SC reported in 236 ITR 515. The facts of HR Aslot and NA Mody's case are similar to Tribhuvandas G Paters case, therefore, the same also impliedly overruled by Hon'ble SC. Further, CIT v A N Naik 265 ITR 346, word "Otherwise" in section 45(4) covers not only the cases of dissolution but also Associates cases of subsisting partners of a partnership transferring assets in favour of a' retiring partner. In this case new partners were inducted in morning and old partners retired on close of the business on that day. In para 27 of the order, it was (Bomba…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2