CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co.

DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…se cases completely out of context. Nevertheless, it may be noted here that the supreme court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electric Control Gear Manf. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 278 (SC) distinguished its own decision in Artex Manufacturing Co 227 ITR 260(SC) by holding that "there was nothing to indicate the price attributable to the assets like Machinery, plant or building out of the total sales consideration amount and merely because depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amount between the price and WDV". In this connection the High Court of Gujarat…

Procter & Gamble Hygine & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…se cases completely out of context. Nevertheless, it may be noted here that the supreme court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electric Control Gear Manf. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 278 (SC) distinguished its own decision in Artex Manufacturing Co 227 ITR 260(SC) by holding that "there was nothing to indicate the price attributable to the assets like Machinery, plant or building out of the total sales consideration amount and merely because depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amount between the price and WDV". In this connection the High Court of Gujarat…

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hyginene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…se cases completely out of context. Nevertheless, it may be noted here that the supreme court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electric Control Gear Manf. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 278 (SC) distinguished its own decision in Artex Manufacturing Co 227 ITR 260(SC) by holding that "there was nothing to indicate the price attributable to the assets like Machinery, plant or building out of the total sales consideration amount and merely because depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amount between the price and WDV". In this connection the High Court of Gujarat…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…se cases completely out of context. Nevertheless, it may be noted here that the supreme court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electric Control Gear Manf. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 278 (SC) distinguished its own decision in Artex Manufacturing Co 227 ITR 260(SC) by holding that "there was nothing to indicate the price attributable to the assets like Machinery, plant or building out of the total sales consideration amount and merely because depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amount between the price and WDV". In this connection the High Court of Gujarat…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Cir. 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…se cases completely out of context. Nevertheless, it may be noted here that the supreme court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electric Control Gear Manf. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 278 (SC) distinguished its own decision in Artex Manufacturing Co 227 ITR 260(SC) by holding that "there was nothing to indicate the price attributable to the assets like Machinery, plant or building out of the total sales consideration amount and merely because depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amount between the price and WDV". In this connection the High Court of Gujarat…

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…se cases completely out of context. Nevertheless, it may be noted here that the supreme court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electric Control Gear Manf. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 278 (SC) distinguished its own decision in Artex Manufacturing Co 227 ITR 260(SC) by holding that "there was nothing to indicate the price attributable to the assets like Machinery, plant or building out of the total sales consideration amount and merely because depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amount between the price and WDV". In this connection the High Court of Gujarat…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

…The Assessee has filed appeal against above addition. During the course of appellate hearing, Ld.AR has mainly referred to provisions of Section 50B of the Act and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co [227 ITR 260] and argued that sale consideration had been arrived at by taking into consideration the value of various assets as assessed by the valuer and it is clear that the said transaction involved assigning values to the individual assets and liabilities hence such transaction of the assessee does not fall under the ambit of “Slump Sale”. The Ld. AR has…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

…The Assessee has filed appeal against above addition. During the course of appellate hearing, Ld.AR has mainly referred to provisions of Section 50B of the Act and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co [227 ITR 260] and argued that sale consideration had been arrived at by taking into consideration the value of various assets as assessed by the valuer and it is clear that the said transaction involved assigning values to the individual assets and liabilities hence such transaction of the assessee does not fall under the ambit of “Slump Sale”. The Ld. AR has…

Acc Limited (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT - Ltu, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…dered view, the AO’s action was completely justified and in accordance with the provisions of law. Further to that, . I also want to make this observation that the case laws relied upon by the appellant of Artex Manufacturing Co. of the Apex Court reported in 227 ITR 260(SC) and other decisions referred in the submission in support of its contention are delivered by the Apex Court prior to the enactment of the provisions of section 50B of the Act. 13.16 Further, I am of the considered view that once there is an explicit provision available on the statute for taxing such business transaction then, deriving any ana…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…dered view, the AO’s action was completely justified and in accordance with the provisions of law. Further to that, . I also want to make this observation that the case laws relied upon by the appellant of Artex Manufacturing Co. of the Apex Court reported in 227 ITR 260(SC) and other decisions referred in the submission in support of its contention are delivered by the Apex Court prior to the enactment of the provisions of section 50B of the Act. 13.16 Further, I am of the considered view that once there is an explicit provision available on the statute for taxing such business transaction then, deriving any ana…

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…dered view, the AO’s action was completely justified and in accordance with the provisions of law. Further to that, . I also want to make this observation that the case laws relied upon by the appellant of Artex Manufacturing Co. of the Apex Court reported in 227 ITR 260(SC) and other decisions referred in the submission in support of its contention are delivered by the Apex Court prior to the enactment of the provisions of section 50B of the Act. 13.16 Further, I am of the considered view that once there is an explicit provision available on the statute for taxing such business transaction then, deriving any ana…

Tmf Holding Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

…e arguments have been upheld in various judicial pronouncements, some of which are as follows: • Shri Madan Mohan Chandak (ITA No. 1256/Mds/2009) dated 19 May 2011(Refer page 255 to 259 of the legal paperbook) 20 TMF Holdings Ltd., • Artex Manufacturing Co. (227 ITR 260) (SC) (Refer page 229 to 237 of the legal paperbook) • CIT vs Bharat Bijlee Limited (365 ITR 258) (Bom HC) (Refer page 318 to 323 of the legal paperbook) • Bharat Bijlee Limited v. ACIT [ITA No. 6410/Mum/2008] (2006) (Mumbai Tribunal) (Refer page 301 to 317 of the legal paperbook) 48. In view of the above, it is submitted that the provisions of s…

Unisol Infraservices P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7416/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) Unisol Infraservices Pvt. Ltd The Dy. Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, Gemstar Commercial Tax, Circle-13(1)(1), Mumbai Complex, Ramchandra Lane बनाम/ Extension Kanchapada, Malad Vs. (West), Mumbai-400 064 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aabcr7857A अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Jd Mistry, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019

…lue. However, by reducing the consideration to Rs 375,00,000/- on the basis of individual asset value considered for NAV, one of the conditions for treating the transaction as 'slump sale 'is violated. 4.17. In the case of CIT vs. Artex Mfg. Co. vs CIT (1997) 227 ITR 260 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court overturned the decision of the Hon'ble High Court that had held the transfer to be a 'slump sale'. The Apex Court held that Held It was the admitted case of the assessee before the ITO that the plant, machinery and deadstock had been revalued by a valuer at the time of the agreement for sale and the amount of Rs. 11,50…

Morarjee Realities Ltd. (Now Known As Peninsula Land Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T. Circle 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2004-05

…y decision on which the CIT(A) has based his finding as gone in favour of the assessee and the Jurisdictional High Court while deciding the issue has also considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Artex Manufacturing Company (227 ITR 260), which is another decision on which the CIT(A) has based his finding . With this decision of the Jurisdictional High Court going in favour of the assessee, the transaction has to be taken a slump sale and the capital gains have to be computed accordingly as per the provisions of Section 45 to 50.” (underlined for emphasis by us) 15. Before us,…

Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

…has been transfer by hiving off Planet M. division consisting of leisure and retail products, on a going concern basis. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. D.R. relied on the decision of CIT vs. Artex Manufacturing Co. (1997) 227 ITR 260 (SC) and CIT vs. Electric Control Gear Mfg. Co. [1997] 227 ITR 278 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that surplus realized on sale of depreciable asset to the extent of the difference between the written down value and the actual cost being the depreciation actually allowed would be chargeable to tax as deemed business profits under s…

Addl CIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

…es of the business for which the consideration for the transfer is determined as a lumpsum amount by mutual agreement between the parties to the transaction. The issue has been decided by the Supreme Court In the two Judgments in CIT vs. Artex Mfg. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 260 (SC) and CIT vs. Electric Control Gear Mfg. Co. 227 ITR 278 (SC) ) and a perusal of both the decisions of the Supreme Court would show that the surplus realized on sale of depreciable asset to the extent of the difference between the written down value and the actual cost being the depreciation actually allowed would be chargeable to tax as deeme…

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

…es of the business for which the consideration for the transfer is determined as a lumpsum amount by mutual agreement between the parties to the transaction. The issue has been decided by the Supreme Court In the two Judgments in CIT vs. Artex Mfg. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 260 (SC) and CIT vs. Electric Control Gear Mfg. Co. 227 ITR 278 (SC) ) and a perusal of both the decisions of the Supreme Court would show that the surplus realized on sale of depreciable asset to the extent of the difference between the written down value and the actual cost being the depreciation actually allowed would be chargeable to tax as deeme…