CIT v. Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co. Ltd.

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)

…but entire undertaking itself is purchased as it is in year under consideration which clearly prove that assessee has not split any of its existing business for forming both the units. Hon’ble Bombay High court in CIT v. Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co. Ltd. [1959] 35 ITR 662 explains that the concept of a reconstruction of a business implies that the original business is not to cease functioning and its identity is not lost. Reconstruction is of a business already in existence implies that there must be a continuation of the activities of business of the same industrial undertaking where the ownership of a business or…

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

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

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 Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - 1(1) V. M/S. Acc Limited Room No. 79, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…but entire undertaking itself is purchased as it is in year under consideration which clearly prove that assessee has not split any of its existing business for forming both the units. Hon’ble Bombay High court in CIT v. Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co. Ltd. [1959] 35 ITR 662 explains that the concept of a reconstruction of a business implies that the original business is not to cease functioning and its identity is not lost. Reconstruction is of a business already in existence implies that there must be a continuation of the activities of business of the same industrial undertaking where the ownership of a business or…

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

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

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 Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - 1(1) V. M/S. Acc Limited Room No. 79, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…but entire undertaking itself is purchased as it is in year under consideration which clearly prove that assessee has not split any of its existing business for forming both the units. Hon’ble Bombay High court in CIT v. Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co. Ltd. [1959] 35 ITR 662 explains that the concept of a reconstruction of a business implies that the original business is not to cease functioning and its identity is not lost. Reconstruction is of a business already in existence implies that there must be a continuation of the activities of business of the same industrial undertaking where the ownership of a business or…

ITO 1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Everyday Health India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2936/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

…Delhi HC) c) CIT v. Batala Engg Co. ltd (1979) 120 ITR 683 (P&H HC) d) CIT v. Electric Lamp Mfrs (India) P Ltd (1987) 165 ITR 115 (Cal. HC) e) CIT v. Hindustan Malleables & Forgings Ltd (1991) 191 ITR 70 (Patna HC) f) CIT v. Gaekar Foam & Rubber Co Ltd (1959) 35 ITR 662 (Bom. HC) g) CIT v. Devson Ltd (1975) 98 ITR 311 (J&K HC) The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee and denied the benefit of exemption u/s 10B of the 1961 Act to the assessee, by an assessment order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the 1961 Act, by holding as under:- 4.9 The facts of the case are that the assessee company w…

ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Laxmi Infosolutins & Jewelery Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

…d to claim the deduction u/s 10AA because of the following reasons: (i) The decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation 107 ITR 195 and jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co. (35 ITR 662) are clearly in appellant's favour as to what constitutes reconstruction of a business or not. Further, the decision’s of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trauancore Rayons Ltd. & Ant. (164 ITR 134) and the Hon 'ble Patna High Court in the case of Hindustan Malleables & Forgings Ltd. vs. ITO and another (1978) 112 ITR 389 also clea…

Worldwide Software (Exports), Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…e Assessee. The undertaking of the Assessee was not formed by the splitting up of the business. The first question of law would have to be answered in favour of the assessee. Further relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Gaekwar Foam (35 ITR 662) explains that the concept of a reconstruction of a business implies that the original business is not to cease functioning and its identity is not lost. Reconstruction is of a business already in existence and there must be a continuation of the activities and business of the same industrial undertaking. Where the ownership of a business or under…

Worldwide Software (Exports), Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…e Assessee. The undertaking of the Assessee was not formed by the splitting up of the business. The first question of law would have to be answered in favour of the assessee. Further relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Gaekwar Foam (35 ITR 662) explains that the concept of a reconstruction of a business implies that the original business is not to cease functioning and its identity is not lost. Reconstruction is of a business already in existence and there must be a continuation of the activities and business of the same industrial undertaking. Where the ownership of a business or under…

Hemant Kumar Godara vs. Asst CIT 15(1)

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4185/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Hemant Kumar Godara, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax E-1, Oidc Ringanwada, 15(1), Vs. Daman (Ut)- Mumbai. Pin-396210 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…p firm into a proprietary concern cannot be considered to a case of “Splitting up” or “reconstruction” of existing business. In support of this contention, the assessee has placed reliance on the following case law:- (a) CIT Vs. Gaekwad Foam & Rubber Co. Ltd (35 ITR 662)(Bom), wherein it was held that the take over of an undertaking by a company from partnership firm, by allotting shares to the partners did not amount to reconstruction. (b) CIT Vs. Hindustan General Industries (137 ITR 851)(Del), wherein it was held that the expression “Splitting up of the business already in existence” indicates a case where the…

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Manohar Canisters P.Ltd, Mumbai

…ion of the assessee and the assessment order the FAA defined the work reconstruction and referred to the cases of Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. (151 ITR381), Devson Ltd. (98 ITR 311), Orient Paper Mills Ltd. (94 ITR 73), Gaikwad Foam & Rubber Co. Ltd. (35 ITR 662).He held that the industrial unit was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the business, that the business acquired by new corporate entity on a succession basis could not be termed reconstruction, that the new unit was set up with its own investment. He directed the AO to allow the deduction u/s. 80I of the Act. 4.Before us,Departmenta…