CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai

91 ITR 393High Court1973#3826 most cited

What is CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai authority for?

The distribution of capital assets to a partner upon the dissolution of a partnership firm does not constitute a 'transfer' and is therefore not taxable as capital gains.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai · section 45 · section 47 · transfer of capital asset · dissolution of partnership · capital gains · no transfer · extinguishment of rights

Sections most often in play

Section 45(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(2)Section 28(\u03bd)

Issues it is cited on

section 47transfer of capital assetsection 45fair market valueassistant commissionerundisclosed incomesection 153section 153asection 132transferprevious yearperson

Judgments citing CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai

HEMANT NARESH AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 170/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआ.(खो और ज).सं /It(Ss)A No.68 & 70/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Hemant Naresh Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Vs. Surat Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat-395 010 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.170/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hemant Naresh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Surat-395 010 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69

…ights of the Firm in the Capital asset when the capital asset is distributed to the partner on dissolution. In Addl. CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai (1987) 165 ITR 166 (SC) Supreme Court had approved the decision of Gujarat HC in CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai, [1973] 91 ITR 393 (Guj) wherein it was held that when a partner retires from partnership firm and receives consideration in terms of money which includes proportionate share of goodwill therein, the same is not taxable as there is no ‘transfer’. Relying on Mohanbhai Pamabhai, the Apex Court had in the case of CIT vs. R.Lingamallu Raghukumar (2001) 247 ITR 801 (SC)…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.968 & 969/Bang/2024 Assessment years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/s. Anand Diagnostic Laboratory, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.54, Bowring Towers, of Income Tax, Bowring Hospital Road, Central Circle 2(4), Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN: AAHFA 2660H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Arjunraj, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Netrapal M S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 08.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.968 & 969/Bang/2024 Assessment years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/s. Anand Diagnostic Laboratory, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.54, Bowring Towers, of Income Tax, Bowring Hospital Road, Central Circle 2(4), Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN: AAHFA 2660H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Arjunraj, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Netrapal M S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 08.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. JAYSHREE SHAILESH SAVLA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal o

ITA 2304/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Jayshree Shailesh Savla, Room No. 216, 2Nd Floor, A/7, Mani Bhavan, Swastik Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Society N S Road, No. 3, Bandra East, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aksps 2546 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: None
Section 54F

…f ACIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai (1987) 165 ITR 166 (SC) had approved the decision of Hon'ble (1987) 165 ITR 166 (SC) had approved the decision of Hon'ble (1987) 165 ITR 166 (SC) had approved the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat HC - CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai, (1973) 91 ITR 393(Guj) CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai, (1973) 91 ITR 393(Guj) wherein it was held that when a partner retires from partnership was held that when a partner retires from partnership was held that when a partner retires from partnership firm and receives consideration, which includes proportionate firm and receives consideration, which includes proportiona…

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

ITA 1119/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)(a)Section 68Section 69B

…ITA Nos.1117 to 1119/Bang/2022 Mohammed Mujeeb Sikander, Mangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1117 to 1119/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2018-19 Mohammed Mujeeb Sikander 306, 3rd Floor, B.M.K. Commercial Centre DCIT Highland, Falnir Vs. Central Circle-1 Mangalore 575 002 Mangalore PAN NO : AELPS6817A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 16.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023 O…

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

ITA 1117/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)(a)Section 68Section 69B

…ITA Nos.1117 to 1119/Bang/2022 Mohammed Mujeeb Sikander, Mangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1117 to 1119/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2018-19 Mohammed Mujeeb Sikander 306, 3rd Floor, B.M.K. Commercial Centre DCIT Highland, Falnir Vs. Central Circle-1 Mangalore 575 002 Mangalore PAN NO : AELPS6817A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 16.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023 O…

TREE HILL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1395/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…ot credited to the partner’s capital account. 13. The ld. AR relied on the following case laws to submit that the goodwill created by revaluation received by the retiring partner as part of reconstitution is not liable to tax:- (i) Mohanbhai Pamabhai (1973) 91 ITR 393 (Guj) (ii) CIT v. Bankey Lal Vaidya (1971) 79 ITR 594 (SC) (iii) Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 49 (SC) (iv) Tribhuvandas G. Patel v. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 515 (SC) (v) CIT v. Karnataka Agro Chemicals (2014) 49 taxmann.com 324 (Kar) Page 6 of 20 (vi) Savitri Kadur v. DCIT (2019) 106 taxmann.com 314 (Bang. Trib.) (vii) New Kamlesh Jewell…

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 27/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…ated by the expression “transfer” as defined in section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act and in reaching to this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court had placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. MohanbhaiPamabhai (1973) 91 ITR 393 (Guj), wherein the Honourable Gujarat High Court held that where a partner retires from a partnership and the amount of his share in the net partnership assets after deduction of liabilities and prior charges is determined on taking accounts in the manner prescribed by the relevant provisions of the partnership law there is no element of transfer…

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 26/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…ated by the expression “transfer” as defined in section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act and in reaching to this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court had placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. MohanbhaiPamabhai (1973) 91 ITR 393 (Guj), wherein the Honourable Gujarat High Court held that where a partner retires from a partnership and the amount of his share in the net partnership assets after deduction of liabilities and prior charges is determined on taking accounts in the manner prescribed by the relevant provisions of the partnership law there is no element of transfer…

SYNCHEM CHEMICALS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2010-11
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 45

…of the revenue. We find that the Hon'ble High Court had restored the matter to the file of this Tribunal to decide the issue in light of the following decisions:- a. Decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai reported in 91 ITR 393 (Guj) b. Decision of aforesaid Gujarat High Court affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 165 ITR 166 (SC) c. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT reported in 156 ITR 509 (SC) d. Decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar reported in 247 ITR 801(SC) 10. We find that during the…

M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4882/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

…fortified by the decision from Chalasani Venkateswara Rao vs. ITO (25 Taxman.com 378)(AP). The divisionfBench of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High court in L. Raghu Kumar followed the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Mohan Bhai Pama Bhai (1973) 91 ITR 393 (Guj.) has held that no transfer is involved when a retiring partner receives at the time of retirement from the firm, his share in the partnership asset either in cash or any other asset. The ratio laid down in P.H. Patel (171 ITR 128) wherein it was held that when a partner retires from a partnership taking his share of partnership interest, the…

ITO - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

…fortified by the decision from Chalasani Venkateswara Rao vs. ITO (25 Taxman.com 378)(AP). The divisionfBench of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High court in L. Raghu Kumar followed the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Mohan Bhai Pama Bhai (1973) 91 ITR 393 (Guj.) has held that no transfer is involved when a retiring partner receives at the time of retirement from the firm, his share in the partnership asset either in cash or any other asset. The ratio laid down in P.H. Patel (171 ITR 128) wherein it was held that when a partner retires from a partnership taking his share of partnership interest, the…

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)

…upon deduction of liabilities does not involve an element of transfer within the meaning of section 2(47). Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as the learned Judge then was) speaking for a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393 dealt with the issue in the following observations:— "...When, therefore, a partner retires from a partnership and the amount of his share in the net partnership assets after deduction of liabilities and prior charges is determined on taking accounts on the footing of notional sale of the partnership assets and given to him, what he receives is hi…

RAHAS INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2752/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Lupin Investments Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited (Successor To Income Tax, 10(1) Rahas Investments Private Aayakar Bhavan Limited M.K.Road, 159, Cst Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Kalina, Santacruz(E) Mumbai – 400 098 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr3202L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Lupin Investments Private Income Tax, 10(1) Limited (Successor To Rahas Aayakar Bhavan Investments Private Limited M.K.Road, 159, Cst Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Kalina, Santacruz(E) Mumbai – 400 098 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr3202L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hemen Chandariya Revenue By Shri Padmapani Bora Date Of Hearing 08/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2020

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 45

…n view of the facts on record, which do not seem to be in any manner disputed, the question of applicability of the judgments of the Supreme Court would arise. The applicability of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai,[ 91 ITR 393 (Guj)] as confirmed by the Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [165 ITR 166 (SC)], the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sunil Siddharthbhai Vs. CIT [156 ITR 509 (SC)], as also the decision of the Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar [247 ITR 801 (SC)] would have to be examined. Since this has not been do…

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

…al balance to the credit of account of partners account is not taxable :- 1. Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bom) 2. Chalasani Venkatesara Rao Vs. ITO 349 ITR 423 (A. P.) 3. CIT Vs. Dynamic Enterprises 359 ITR 83 (Kar) 4. CIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 91 ITR 393 (Guj) He also relied on various decisions of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal on this proposition. 15. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that sum standing to the credit in the current account or capital account of the retiring partner cannot be “deemed” as transfer of interest in the assets of partnership firm u/s. 2 (47…

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

…al balance to the credit of account of partners account is not taxable :- 1. Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bom) 2. Chalasani Venkatesara Rao Vs. ITO 349 ITR 423 (A. P.) 3. CIT Vs. Dynamic Enterprises 359 ITR 83 (Kar) 4. CIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 91 ITR 393 (Guj) He also relied on various decisions of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal on this proposition. 15. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that sum standing to the credit in the current account or capital account of the retiring partner cannot be “deemed” as transfer of interest in the assets of partnership firm u/s. 2 (47…

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

…argeable to tax. 32. With regard to case laws cited on behalf of the Assessee, they are as follows: 1 Malabar Fisheries Co. Vs. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 49 (SC) 93-101 2 ACIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 (SC) 102 3 ACIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393 (Guj) 103-111 4 CIT V Legal Representatives of N Paliniappa Gounder [1983] 143 ITR 343 (Madras) 112-115 5 CIT Vs. P.H Patel [1988] 171 ITR 128 (Andhra Pradesh) 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…

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4370/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…CIT [1979] 120 ITR 49 (SC) as well as by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kay Engineering Co. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 950, the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Nataraj Motor Service [1972] 86 ITR 109 and the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393, that when a partner retires or the partnership is dissolved, what the partner receives is his share in the partnership. What is contemplated here is a share of the partner qua the net assets of the partnership firm. On evaluation, that share in a particular case may be realised by the receipt of only one of all the assets. What happens here is th…

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3237/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…CIT [1979] 120 ITR 49 (SC) as well as by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kay Engineering Co. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 950, the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Nataraj Motor Service [1972] 86 ITR 109 and the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393, that when a partner retires or the partnership is dissolved, what the partner receives is his share in the partnership. What is contemplated here is a share of the partner qua the net assets of the partnership firm. On evaluation, that share in a particular case may be realised by the receipt of only one of all the assets. What happens here is th…

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

ITA 2906/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…CIT [1979] 120 ITR 49 (SC) as well as by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kay Engineering Co. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 950, the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Nataraj Motor Service [1972] 86 ITR 109 and the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393, that when a partner retires or the partnership is dissolved, what the partner receives is his share in the partnership. What is contemplated here is a share of the partner qua the net assets of the partnership firm. On evaluation, that share in a particular case may be realised by the receipt of only one of all the assets. What happens here is th…

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai (91 ITR 393) — Cited in 31 Judgments | BharatTax