CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai

91 ITR 393High Court1973#3821 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 366,339 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

Supermax Personal Care P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

ITA 6107/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-CIT-DR
Section 143Section 2(47)Section 254(1)Section 9Section 9(1)

…charging capital gains were (i) there must be a transfer of a capital asset;(ii) profit or gains must have arisen from the transfer after making deductions as provided by section 48 of the Act.The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court,in the matter of Mohanbhai Pamabhai(91 ITR 393)has observed that section 2(47)defines transfers in relation to a capital asset,that the transfer of a capital asset in order to attract capital gains tax must be one as a result of which consideration would be received by the assessee or would accrue to the assessee.Here,we would also like to reproduce the relevant part of the judgment of the Hon…

M/S Flipkart India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 131

…tled the law, the preponderance of judicial opinion being the same as the view taken by the Supreme Court in B. C. Srinivasa Setty's case, the only two High Courts to have taken a contrary view being the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai (1973) 91 ITR 393, and the Calcutta High Court in K. N. Daftary vs. CIT 1976 CTR (Cal) 23 : (1977) 106 ITR 998 (Cal). The Supreme Court has also mentioned in its judgment the decisions of High Courts which had earlier taken the same view as the Supreme Court did, and obviously approved of the view expressed by these High Courts. Amongst them is the decision of this…

Smt. Rama S. Gummadi vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)

ITTA/207/2005HC Telangana14 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

For Appellant: Dr. C.P. RamaswamyFor Respondent: Sri K. Raji Reddy
Section 47

…the facts in Lingamallu Raghukumar (3 supra). In our opinion the judgment in Lingamallu Raghukumar (3 supra) applies in all fours to the case on hand as the facts in both the cases are similar. 4 (1973) 91 ITR 393 (Guj) 5 (1987) 165 ITR 166 CVNR, J & KVL, J I.T.T.A. No.207 of 2005 5 In the light of the ratio in Lingamallu Raghukumar (3 supra), the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The questions of law raised in this appeal are accordingly answered in favour of the appellant-assessee. ________…

Geetha Subramanian, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessees stand dismissed

ITA 428/CHNY/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Krishnan, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT
Section 13(2)

…27 & 428/Mds/2017 :- 4 -: hands and the full sale consideration which was received in advance was handed over to the company to settle its bank dues. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahanbhai Pamabhai 91 ITR 393 and that of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd vs. ACIT (2014) 49 Taxmann.com 599. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not impressed. According to him, both the decisions relied on by the assessee were completely different on facts. According to him, by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble A…

S.Venkatasubramanian, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessees stand dismissed

ITA 427/CHNY/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Krishnan, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT
Section 13(2)

…27 & 428/Mds/2017 :- 4 -: hands and the full sale consideration which was received in advance was handed over to the company to settle its bank dues. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahanbhai Pamabhai 91 ITR 393 and that of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd vs. ACIT (2014) 49 Taxmann.com 599. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not impressed. According to him, both the decisions relied on by the assessee were completely different on facts. According to him, by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble A…

Aditya Birla Telecom Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax 10(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 341/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar, Sp. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 391Section 394Section 45Section 47

…al Holding Ltd (322 ITR 678)(AAR) (v) Dana Corporation (321 ITR 178)(AAR) (vi) KP Varghese vs ITO (1311TR 597)(SC) (vii) CIT v Shivakami Company P. Ltd. [1986] (159 ITR 71) (SC) (viii) Ruling of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1997] (91 ITR 393) ] 48. Applying judicial pronouncements as laid down in the above decision, we can safely conclude that in case of transfer of a capital asset, what can be taxed in the hands of the seller under the Act is real or actual gain that accrues/ arises from transfer of the assets and hence, in absence of any sale consideration (and resultant profit from…

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)

…TA 1797/Mum/2012 & 19 ITA 1798/Mum/2012 reiterated that there is no element of transfer of interest in the partnership assets by the retired partner to the continuing partners. Reliance for that was placed in the judgment of CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393 (Guj.) which had been affirmed by the Apex Court and the judgment in Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 . The Gujarat High Court had taken the view that when a retired partner receives a share of amount calculated on the value of the net goodwill of the firm there was no transfer of interest of the partner in the goodwill and no pa…

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)

…TA 1797/Mum/2012 & 19 ITA 1798/Mum/2012 reiterated that there is no element of transfer of interest in the partnership assets by the retired partner to the continuing partners. Reliance for that was placed in the judgment of CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393 (Guj.) which had been affirmed by the Apex Court and the judgment in Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 . The Gujarat High Court had taken the view that when a retired partner receives a share of amount calculated on the value of the net goodwill of the firm there was no transfer of interest of the partner in the goodwill and no pa…

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)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘सी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5426/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) ACIT Central Circle-2, Mumbai- Vs. Parshuram Maganlal 400020 Amin, M-19, Someshwar Enclave, Nr. South Gujrat University, Udhana, Magdalla Road, Surat, Gujrat-395007 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : ABLPA 8022 E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5427/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) ACIT Central Circle-2, Mumba…

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)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘सी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5426/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) ACIT Central Circle-2, Mumbai- Vs. Parshuram Maganlal 400020 Amin, M-19, Someshwar Enclave, Nr. South Gujrat University, Udhana, Magdalla Road, Surat, Gujrat-395007 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : ABLPA 8022 E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5427/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) ACIT Central Circle-2, Mumba…

Anant B. Tawade, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6362/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6362/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Anand B. Tawade, Ito – 17(3)(1), बनाम/ 106, Roop Rayon Mill Piramal Chambers, V. Compound, Lalbaug, Near Datt Mandir, Mumbai. Jijamata Nagar, Kalachowki, Mumbai – 400 033. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Acdpt 9937A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)

…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 h…