CIT v. Mugneeram Bangur & Corn. (Land Department)

57 ITR 299Supreme Court of India1965#5643 most cited
21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 43Section 50B

Issues it is cited on

section 14ascrutiny assessmenttransferprescribedcompanyindiabusinesssection 14section 143(3)total incomeinterest

Judgments citing CIT v. Mugneeram Bangur & Corn. (Land Department)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1) VADODARA, VADODARA vs. M/S. INOX WIND ENERGY LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 654/AHD/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.654/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Inox Wind Energy Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Limited, V/S. Circle-1(1)(1), Abs Tower S. No.1837 & Vadodara. 1834, Op Road, Vadodara-390007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafc14628K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Dated 27.01.2025, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], On 18.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. Dcit Vs. Inox Wind Energy Limited Assessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ntire business undertaking on slump sale basis for a consolidated consideration of Rs. 1 crore, and no item-wise value was assigned to individual assets in the purchase agreement. Relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mugneeram Bangur & Co. 57 ITR 299 (SC) and R. Tex Manufacturing Co. 227 ITR 260 (SC), he held that the slump purchase price cannot be apportioned amongst individual assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation. 13. The CIT(A), however, noted that in the first year of acquisition, i.e. A.Y. 2012-13, depreciation on the very same assets had been allowed by the coordinate bench i…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. U K PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT Vs. M/s. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, DDA Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 PAN No. AAACU 0057 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) And CO No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising out of ITA No.4115/Del/2013) (for Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/s. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. ACIT Pvt. Ltd., 19, DDA Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 PAN No. AAACU 0057 C (APP…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S U.K. PAINTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 4115/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT Vs. M/s. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, DDA Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 PAN No. AAACU 0057 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) And CO No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising out of ITA No.4115/Del/2013) (for Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/s. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. ACIT Pvt. Ltd., 19, DDA Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 PAN No. AAACU 0057 C (APP…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-41(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SANGEETA DILIP PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 551/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-41(2)(1), Sangeeta Dilip Patil, Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, 111, Marathon Max Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mulund Goregoan Link Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aatpp 1470 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Fenil Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 28

…d. 184 ITR 461 (Ker.) iii. CIT Vs West Coast Chemicals and Industries Ltd CIT Vs West Coast Chemicals and Industries Ltd CIT Vs West Coast Chemicals and Industries Ltd 46 ITR 135 (S.C) 46 ITR 135 (S.C) iv. CIT Vs Mugni Ram Bangu CIT Vs Mugni Ram Bangur and Co 57 ITR 299 r and Co 57 ITR 299 (S.C) (S.C) v. West Coast Electric Supply Corporation Ltd Vs CIT West Coast Electric Supply Corporation Ltd Vs CIT West Coast Electric Supply Corporation Ltd Vs CIT 107 ITR 483 (Mad.) 107 ITR 483 (Mad.) vi. Syndicate Bank Ltd Vs CIT 155 [TR 681 (Kar.) Syndicate Bank Ltd Vs CIT 155 [TR 681 (Kar.) Syndicate Bank Ltd Vs CIT 155 [T…

ACIT 26 (3), MUMBAI vs. SANGEETA DILIP PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6557/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit-26(3), Sangeeta Dilip Patil, R. No. 332, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya 1204, Park Royale, Madan Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mohan Malviye Road, Bandra East, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aatpp 1470 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Nilu Jaggi, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 23/02/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Nilu Jaggi, CIT-DR
Section 28(11)(a)

…vt Ltd. 184 ITR 461 (Ker.) 184 ITR 461 (Ker.) iii. CIT Vs West Coast Chemicals and Industries Ltd 46 ITR CIT Vs West Coast Chemicals and Industries Ltd 46 CIT Vs West Coast Chemicals and Industries Ltd 46 135 (S.C) 135 (S.C) iv. CIT Vs Mugni Ram Bangur and Co 57 ITR 299 (S.C) CIT Vs Mugni Ram Bangur and Co 57 ITR 299 (S.C) CIT Vs Mugni Ram Bangur and Co 57 ITR 299 (S.C) v. West Coast Electric Supply Corporation Ltd Vs CIT 107 West Coast Electric Supply Corporation Ltd Vs CIT 107 West Coast Electric Supply Corporation Ltd Vs CIT 107 ITR 483 (Mad.) ITR 483 (Mad.) vi. Syndicate Bank Ltd Vs CIT 155 [TR 681 (Kar.) Syn…

PRANAY GODHA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result we are in agreement with a finding of Ld

ITA 1185/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mani Jain/Prateek JainFor Respondent: Sh. Vinay Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 28

…Pranay Godha & Ors. i) CIT Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd 122 ITR 633 (Mum.) ii) CIT Vs F.X. Periera and Sons (Travancore) Pvt Ltd. 184 ITR 461 (Ker.) iii) CIT Vs West Coast Chemicals and Industries Ltd 46 ITR 135 (S.C) IV) CIT Vs Mugni Ram Bangur and Co 57 ITR 299 (S.C) V) West Coast Electric Supply Corporation Ltd Vs CIT 107 ITR 483 (Mad.) vi) Syndicate Bank Ltd Vs CIT 155 ITR 681 (Kar.) vii) Indian Bank Ltd Vs CIT 153 ITR 282 (Mad.) viii) ACIT vs. Savita N. Mandhana & Ors., ITA No. 3900/Mum/2010 ix) Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) x) CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) xi) CIT Vs. Sh…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6/VIZ/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar – AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy – CIT DR
Section 263Section 32

…' and entry in the books of account not conclusive and the department was not entitled to take the book keeping entries as evidence. For that purpose he relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mugneeram Bangur & Corn. (Land Department) (57 ITR 299 ) (SC). Further contention is that substance of the situation to be seen rather than form. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following judgment: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v, CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC), wherein it was held whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend upon the provisions of law relating there…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5/VIZ/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar – AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy – CIT DR
Section 263Section 32

…' and entry in the books of account not conclusive and the department was not entitled to take the book keeping entries as evidence. For that purpose he relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mugneeram Bangur & Corn. (Land Department) (57 ITR 299 ) (SC). Further contention is that substance of the situation to be seen rather than form. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following judgment: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v, CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC), wherein it was held whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend upon the provisions of law relating there…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4/VIZ/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar – AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy – CIT DR
Section 263Section 32

…' and entry in the books of account not conclusive and the department was not entitled to take the book keeping entries as evidence. For that purpose he relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mugneeram Bangur & Corn. (Land Department) (57 ITR 299 ) (SC). Further contention is that substance of the situation to be seen rather than form. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following judgment: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v, CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC), wherein it was held whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend upon the provisions of law relating there…

THE DY CIT CIR.1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AEGIS LOGISTICS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 8372/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/7825/Mum/2004,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 आयकर अपील सं./Ita/6905/Mum/2006 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Aegis Logistics Limited Acit, Circle-1(1) 403, Peninsula Chambers, Morarjee Mills Mumbai. Compound,G.K. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaaca 3302 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./8372/Mum/2004 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Acit, Circle-1(1) Vs. Aegis Logistics Limited Mumbai. Mumbai-400013 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri S.K. Mishra-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti Patel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:10/03/2017 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 16.6.2004 Of The Cit(A)-I,Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.The Assessee Has Also Filed Against The Penalty Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) For The Year Under Appeal.We Will Be Deciding All The Appeals By Single Common Order.Assessee-Company,Engaged In Business Of Manufacturing Of Chemicals,Filed Its Return Of Income,On 31.12.1999,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5.97Crores.The Ao Completed Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 28.3.2002 Determin -Ing Its Income At Rs.13.93Crores. During The Course Of Hearing Before Us The Authorised Representative (Ar) Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing Grounds No1.A, 1.C, 1.D & 1.E. Hence,Same Stand Dismissed, As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…transfer took place. In this case, transfer took place on July 18, 1969. The second test which needs to be applied is the test of allocation/attribution. This test is spelt out in the judgment of this court in Mugneeram Bangur and Co. (Land Department) [1965] 57 ITR 299. This test applies to a slump transaction. The object behind this test is to find out whether the slump price was capable of being attributable to individual assets, which is also known as item-wise earmarking. The third test is that there is a conceptual difference between an undertaking and its components. Plant, machinery and dead stock are ind…

M/S. AEGIS LOGISTICS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 7825/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/7825/Mum/2004,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 आयकर अपील सं./Ita/6905/Mum/2006 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Aegis Logistics Limited Acit, Circle-1(1) 403, Peninsula Chambers, Morarjee Mills Mumbai. Compound,G.K. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaaca 3302 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./8372/Mum/2004 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Acit, Circle-1(1) Vs. Aegis Logistics Limited Mumbai. Mumbai-400013 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri S.K. Mishra-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti Patel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:10/03/2017 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 16.6.2004 Of The Cit(A)-I,Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.The Assessee Has Also Filed Against The Penalty Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) For The Year Under Appeal.We Will Be Deciding All The Appeals By Single Common Order.Assessee-Company,Engaged In Business Of Manufacturing Of Chemicals,Filed Its Return Of Income,On 31.12.1999,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5.97Crores.The Ao Completed Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 28.3.2002 Determin -Ing Its Income At Rs.13.93Crores. During The Course Of Hearing Before Us The Authorised Representative (Ar) Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing Grounds No1.A, 1.C, 1.D & 1.E. Hence,Same Stand Dismissed, As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…transfer took place. In this case, transfer took place on July 18, 1969. The second test which needs to be applied is the test of allocation/attribution. This test is spelt out in the judgment of this court in Mugneeram Bangur and Co. (Land Department) [1965] 57 ITR 299. This test applies to a slump transaction. The object behind this test is to find out whether the slump price was capable of being attributable to individual assets, which is also known as item-wise earmarking. The third test is that there is a conceptual difference between an undertaking and its components. Plant, machinery and dead stock are ind…

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016
Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

…In this case, transfer took place on July 18, 1969. The second test which needs to be applied is the test of allocation/attribution. This test is spelt out in the judgment of this Court in Mugneeram Bangur and Co. (Land Department) [1965] 57 ITR 299. This test applies to a slump transaction. The object behind this test is to find out whether the slump price was capable of being attributable to individual assets, which is also known as item-wise earmarking. The third test is that there is a conceptual Page 15 JUDGMENT 15 difference between an undertaking and its components. Plant,…

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016
Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

…In this case, transfer took place on July 18, 1969. The second test which needs to be applied is the test of allocation/attribution. This test is spelt out in the judgment of this Court in Mugneeram Bangur and Co. (Land Department) [1965] 57 ITR 299. This test applies to a slump transaction. The object behind this test is to find out whether the slump price was capable of being attributable to individual assets, which is also known as item-wise earmarking. The third test is that there is a conceptual Page 15 JUDGMENT 15 difference between an undertaking and its components. Plant,…

FIBRES & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 918/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

…a going concern with all the assets & liabilities for a slump consideration, it is neither permissible nor possible to apportion the consideration paid against different assets as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., 57 ITR 299 (SC). Thus, in our considered view, the view of the CIT(Appeals) that there was no goodwill as no commercial rights were acquired, cannot be accepted. 21. The view of the AO that goodwill is not eligible for depreciation as there could be no erosion in the value of goodwill cannot also be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala Hig…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD.

ITA/12/2003HC Delhi13 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior StandingFor Respondent: Mr Salil Kapoor, Mr Sanat Kapoor, Ms Ananya
Section 260ASection 391Section 50

…s. And, concluded that, the transfer of Panasonic Division could not be considered as "a case of transfer of any depreciable asset only". The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (Land Department): (1965) 57 ITR 299 (SC) and held that Section 50(1) of the ITA 12/2003 Page 11 of 28 Act was inapplicable. The Tribunal also noticed the provisions of Section 50B of the Act - which were introduced in the Act with effect from 1st April, 2000 by virtue of the Finance Act, 1999 - and held that since Section 50B of the Act was introduced after…

M/S HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 5,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 330/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50BSection 5O

…y has to be made for the purpose of identification, because inventory was made and the value was indicated against each item and the overwhelming character of the transaction was not changed The Supreme Court decision in CIT V/ Mugneeram Bangur and Co. [1965] 57 ITR 299 also pertained to the agreement containing a schedule indicating the itemwise value of different assets and liabilities. The 1965 Circular clarified the principle involved in the said decision. Our attention was invited by the Revenue to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Jayantilal Bhogilal Desai v, CIT [1981] 130 ITR 655. Atte…

PROFILE GEARS & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 286/CHNY/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2015AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.286/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

For Appellant: Shri. C. Srikanth, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, JCI.T
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 50B

…Taxes, the Tribunal has stated that one of the circulars related to the tax liability of surplus in the case of nationalized banks and it had no application to the present case and that the second circular was based on the decision in Mugneeram Bangur (1965) 57 ITR 299 (SC), and since the said case dealt with the provisions of section 10(2) (vii), proviso (ii), of the 1922 Act prior to amendment, the said circular had no application and that the matter was governed by the decision in B.M. Kharwar (1969) 72 ITR 603(SC). The view of the Tribunal was correct’’. 5. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. NUTRINE CONFECTIONERY CO. P. LTD.,

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/364/2007HC Karnataka02 Dec 2013

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 260ASection 45Section 65

…ook place. In this case, transfer took - 5 - place on 18.7.1969. The second test which needs to be applied is the test of allocation/attribution. This test is spelt out in the judgment of this Court in Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (Land Department) [1965] 57 ITR 299.. This test applies to a slump transaction. The object behind this test is to find out whether the slump price was capable of being attributable to individual assets, which is also known as item-wise earmarking. The third test is that there is a conceptual difference between an undertaking and its components. Plant, machinery and dead s…

THE COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S B V REDDY MARKETING P. LTD

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/353/2007HC Karnataka02 Dec 2013

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 260ASection 50B

…transfer took place. In this case, transfer took place on 18.7.1969. The second test which needs to be applied is the test of allocation/attribution. This test is spelt out in the judgment of this Court in Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (Land Department) [1965] 57 ITR 299.. This test applies to a slump transaction. The object behind this test is to find out whether the slump price was capable of being attributable to individual assets, which is also known as item-wise earmarking. The third test is that there is a conceptual difference between an undertaking and its components. Plant, machinery and dead s…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

ITA/417/2007HC Delhi24 Dec 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 50Section 50(2)

…ITA Nos.417 of 2007 & 1069 of 2007 Page 1 of 22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.417 of 2007 with ITA No.1069 of 2007 % DECISION DELIVERED ON: DECEMBER 24, 2010 1) ITA No.417 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax . . . Appellant through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. VERSUS ECE Industries Limited . . .Respondent through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocate. 2) ITA No.1069 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2