CIT v. K.H. Chambers

55 ITR 674Supreme Court of India1965#15958 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 170Section 32(1)Section 10ASection 10AASection 143(3)Section 2(19AA)Section 2(42C)Section 32

Issues it is cited on

section 170section 47slump saledemergerblock of assetssection 32(1)section 17intangible assetsamalgamationsection 32section 43previous year

Judgments citing CIT v. K.H. Chambers

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Glaxosmithkline Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Nabha

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 121/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, M/S Glaxosmithkline Circle 1(1), बनाम Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Patiala Road, Vs. Nabha. Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aafcg8415R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate With Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 32(1)

…d that mere acquisition of OTC business of Novartis by way of slump sale has, in no way, resulted in non- existence of Novartis to qualify as succession in terms of section 170 of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. 8. K.H. Chambers: [1965] 55 ITR 674 held that the transfer of sole proprietor business by father to his son would qualify as succession under the erstwhile section 25(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 since the business was subjected to tax under the provision of the Income Tax Act 1918. The provisions of section 9 121-Chd-2023 M/s Glaxosmithkline Consumer Pvt. Ltd, Nabha 25(4) of the…

L & T Technologies Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the additional grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4255/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeel&T Technologies Services Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income L&T House, N.M. Marg, Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai Pan: Aaccl4310P Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT- DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 170Section 2Section 250Section 37Section 90

…es. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant succeeded the whole business of LTIL as it continued to operate its business in Services and Industrial Cluster.The Ld. AO has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. KH Chambers 55 ITR 674 wherein according to the Ld. AO, it has succession.The Ld. AR respectfully considered the said decision and stated that theruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as Section 170 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Succession of business other than on death - Assessment year 1948-49 - E…

Dy CIT Circle- 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Archroma India Pvt Ltd., Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Archroma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 128C, 1St Floor 9Th Floor, D Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mbc Park, Ghodbunder Road Mumbai - 400020 Kasawadavali, Thane Mumbai - 400615 Pan: Aaaca8270F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department By : Ms. Shailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai
Section 170Section 2(42)Section 2(42)(C)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 50BSection 5O

…asset taken over. 22. The distinction between the case of the assessee and succession envisaged u/s. 170 as submitted by learned Counsel of the assessee also fails on the touchstone of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. K.H. Chambers [1965] 55 ITR 674 . In this view of the matter other decisions referred by learned Counsel of the assessee cannot take precedence. Moreover, an obiter decta in the case of Tribunal decision in Saipem Triune Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (supra) cannot be said to be a conclusive law that slump sale does not come under the realm of section 170. 23. We can consider the presen…

DCIT RG- 12 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Archroma India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 306/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri C.N. Prasad (Jm)

Section 170Section 32

…sset taken over. 22. The distinction between the case of the assessee and succession envisaged u/s. 170 as submitted by learned Counsel of the assessee also fails on the touchstone of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. K.H. Chambers [1965] 55 ITR 674 . In this view of the matter other decisions referred by learned Counsel of the assessee cannot take precedence. Moreover, an obiter decta in the case of Tribunal decision in Saipem Triune Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (supra) cannot be said to be a conclusive law that slump sale does not come under the realm of section 170. 23. We can consider the presen…

Veena Industries, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 923/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan

For Appellant: Shri G. KalyandasFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 143(1)

…d i.e., on 20.11.1973. In this regard, assessee relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ED Sassoom & Co. Ltd (86 ITR 757) (SC). Reliance was also placed upon another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K.H. Chambers (55 ITR 674 at 680-681) wherein the Court considered the provisions of section 170 of the I.T. Act, 1961 to hold that if a business was taken over as a going concern, it implies that the identity and the continuity of the business is preserved. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P. Koteshwar Rao…

Asst.C.I.T., Bellary vs. M/S Hothur Traders 100% Eou, Bellary

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for asst

ITA 32/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazita No.32/Bang/2016 (Asst. Years 2010-11 & 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bellary. . Appellant Vs. M/S Hothur Traders 100% Eou, No.85,6,7&8, Infantry Road, Cantonment, Bellary. . Respondent Pan –Aaefh7705H. Co No.55/Bang/2016 (By Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Nagendra Prasad, Cit Respondent By : Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 22-11-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2018

For Appellant: Shri Nagendra Prasad, CITFor Respondent: Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH “C” BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.32/Bang/2016 (Asst. Years 2010-11 & 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Bellary. . Appellant Vs. M/s Hothur Traders 100% EOU, No.85,6,7&8, Infantry Road, Cantonment, Bellary. . Respondent PAN –AAEFH7705H. CO No.55/Bang/2016 (By assessee) Appellant by : Shri Nagendra Prasad, CIT Respondent by : Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Date of Hearing : 22-11-2017 Date of Pronouncement : 19-01-2018 O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT…