CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao

155 ITR 152Supreme Court of India1985#2675 most cited

What is CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao authority for?

The principle of succession dictates that all benefits under the Income Tax Act, including the carry forward and set-off of capital losses, due to an amalgamating company devolve upon the amalgamated company.

44

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

Also referred to as

CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao · 155 ITR 152 · amalgamation · succession principle · carry forward of losses · set-off of capital loss · Section 72A · Section 170 · resulting company · benefits of amalgamating company

Also reported as

22 Taxmann 45

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 1961Section 10(34)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 10(35)Section 115JBSection 32(1)(iia)

Issues it is cited on

section 72atest of enduring benefitsection 32(2)section 31(1)section 35ddsection 170resulting companysection 50bsection 147(b)business transfer agreementsection 115jaademerger

Judgments citing CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao

DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

ITA 5417/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…ld that all the benefits under the Income Tax Act, due to the amalgamating company should devolve upon the amalgamated company because of principle of succession relying on the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT –vs.- T Veerabhadra Rao (1985) 155 ITR 152 (SC). Similar view was reported to have been taken by the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT in the case of Electrocast Sales India Ltd. –vs.- DCIT [ITA No. 2145/Kol/2014 dated 09-03-2018. It was argued that there is no bar under the Income Tax Act to deny the carry forward and set of capital loss of amalgamating company in the hands of amalgamated company. 4…

DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

ITA 5416/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…ld that all the benefits under the Income Tax Act, due to the amalgamating company should devolve upon the amalgamated company because of principle of succession relying on the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT –vs.- T Veerabhadra Rao (1985) 155 ITR 152 (SC). Similar view was reported to have been taken by the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT in the case of Electrocast Sales India Ltd. –vs.- DCIT [ITA No. 2145/Kol/2014 dated 09-03-2018. It was argued that there is no bar under the Income Tax Act to deny the carry forward and set of capital loss of amalgamating company in the hands of amalgamated company. 4…

ACIT CIRCLE 1, TRICHY vs. DALMIA CEMENT BHARAT LTD., DALMIAPURAM

ITA 3158/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…ld that all the benefits under the Income Tax Act, due to the amalgamating company should devolve upon the amalgamated company because of principle of succession relying on the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT –vs.- T Veerabhadra Rao (1985) 155 ITR 152 (SC). Similar view was reported to have been taken by the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT in the case of Electrocast Sales India Ltd. –vs.- DCIT [ITA No. 2145/Kol/2014 dated 09-03-2018. It was argued that there is no bar under the Income Tax Act to deny the carry forward and set of capital loss of amalgamating company in the hands of amalgamated company. 4…

ACIT CIRCLE 1, TRICHY vs. DALMIA CEMENT BHARAT LTD., DALMIAPURAM

ITA 3157/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…ld that all the benefits under the Income Tax Act, due to the amalgamating company should devolve upon the amalgamated company because of principle of succession relying on the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT –vs.- T Veerabhadra Rao (1985) 155 ITR 152 (SC). Similar view was reported to have been taken by the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT in the case of Electrocast Sales India Ltd. –vs.- DCIT [ITA No. 2145/Kol/2014 dated 09-03-2018. It was argued that there is no bar under the Income Tax Act to deny the carry forward and set of capital loss of amalgamating company in the hands of amalgamated company. 4…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI, I.P.ESTATE vs. BUREAU VERITAS CONSUMER PRODUCTS SERVICES(INDIA) PVT. LTD., LAJPAT NAGAR

ITA 3158/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…ld that all the benefits under the Income Tax Act, due to the amalgamating company should devolve upon the amalgamated company because of principle of succession relying on the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT –vs.- T Veerabhadra Rao (1985) 155 ITR 152 (SC). Similar view was reported to have been taken by the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT in the case of Electrocast Sales India Ltd. –vs.- DCIT [ITA No. 2145/Kol/2014 dated 09-03-2018. It was argued that there is no bar under the Income Tax Act to deny the carry forward and set of capital loss of amalgamating company in the hands of amalgamated company. 4…

DCIT (IT)-2(1)(2), AIR BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. DBS BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4722/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3691/Mum/2023

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Permpurna, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 44C

…essee in the previous year. Under the Income-tax Act, the emphasis is not on the assessee being the creditor but taking into account of the debt in computing the business income. [See section 36(2)]. In CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao, K. Koteswara Rao & Co. [1985] 155 ITR 152 at 157 (SC), it was found that the debt was taken into account in the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1963-64 when the interest accruing thereon was taxed in the hands of the assessee. The said interest was taxed as income as it represented accretion accruing during the earlier year on the moneys owed to the assessee by the debtor.…

DBS BANK LTD (DBS BANK LTD., INDIA BRANCHES NOW CONVERTED INTO DBS BANK INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TXT)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3691/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Permpurna, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 44C

…essee in the previous year. Under the Income-tax Act, the emphasis is not on the assessee being the creditor but taking into account of the debt in computing the business income. [See section 36(2)]. In CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao, K. Koteswara Rao & Co. [1985] 155 ITR 152 at 157 (SC), it was found that the debt was taken into account in the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1963-64 when the interest accruing thereon was taxed in the hands of the assessee. The said interest was taxed as income as it represented accretion accruing during the earlier year on the moneys owed to the assessee by the debtor.…

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

…sion and wherein it has been held that if part of the debt (interest) is offered to tax in earlier years, deduction of bad debt is available to the assessee qua the total amount (i.e; interest and principal ) of debt written off- - CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao: 155 ITR 152 (SC) - CIT v. D B (India) Securities Ltd: 318 ITR 26 (Del) - CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd: 320 ITR 178 (Del) - CIT v. Shreyas S. Morakhia: 342 ITR 285 (Bom.) - CIT v. Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd.: 235 Taxman 451 (Bom.) - Angel Capital and Debt Market Ltd. v. ACIT: 118 TTJ 351 (Mum ITAT) - Angel Commodities Broking (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 164 TTJ 2…

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , CIRLCE 14(1)(2)TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2833/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

…ntical issue came up before the dentical issue came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs T Veerabhadra Rao & CIT Vs T Veerabhadra Rao & Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KKoteswara Rao & Co. reported in KKoteswara Rao & Co. reported in 155 ITR 152 (SC). 155 ITR 152 (SC). In said case the assessee, a partnership firm, took over the business of an case the assessee, a partnership firm, took over the business of an case the assessee, a partnership firm, took over the business of an earlier firm resulting into all the assets and liabilities of the earlier firm resulting into all the assets and…

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2832/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2016 - 2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

…ntical issue came up before the dentical issue came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs T Veerabhadra Rao & CIT Vs T Veerabhadra Rao & Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KKoteswara Rao & Co. reported in KKoteswara Rao & Co. reported in 155 ITR 152 (SC). 155 ITR 152 (SC). In said case the assessee, a partnership firm, took over the business of an case the assessee, a partnership firm, took over the business of an case the assessee, a partnership firm, took over the business of an earlier firm resulting into all the assets and liabilities of the earlier firm resulting into all the assets and…

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2831/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

…ntical issue came up before the dentical issue came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs T Veerabhadra Rao & CIT Vs T Veerabhadra Rao & Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KKoteswara Rao & Co. reported in KKoteswara Rao & Co. reported in 155 ITR 152 (SC). 155 ITR 152 (SC). In said case the assessee, a partnership firm, took over the business of an case the assessee, a partnership firm, took over the business of an case the assessee, a partnership firm, took over the business of an earlier firm resulting into all the assets and liabilities of the earlier firm resulting into all the assets and…

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2830/MUM/2023[ASST YEAR 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

…ntical issue came up before the dentical issue came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs T Veerabhadra Rao & CIT Vs T Veerabhadra Rao & Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KKoteswara Rao & Co. reported in KKoteswara Rao & Co. reported in 155 ITR 152 (SC). 155 ITR 152 (SC). In said case the assessee, a partnership firm, took over the business of an case the assessee, a partnership firm, took over the business of an case the assessee, a partnership firm, took over the business of an earlier firm resulting into all the assets and liabilities of the earlier firm resulting into all the assets and…

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PVT. LTD,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

ITA 2829/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

…off subsequently due non recoverability, are eligible for deduction u/s 32(2) as bad debt or loss of business respectively. An identical issue came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs T Veerabhadra Rao & KKoteswara Rao & Co. reported in 155 ITR 152 (SC). In said case the assessee, a partnership firm, took over the business of an earlier firm resulting into all the assets and liabilities of the predecessor firm passed on to the assessee firm, which included a debt of 23,577/- due from luxury trading company to the predecessor firm. The total amount due in the account relating to the Laxmi tr…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD

ITA/334/2023HC Delhi15 Sept 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 36(1)Section 36(2)

…d in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:30.10.2023 16:25:29 Signature Not Verified ITA 334/2023 Page 3 of 4 Income Tax v. T. Veerabhadra Rao, (1985) 155 ITR 152 (SC). 7.1 This view has also found resonance with a judgment rendered by the coordinate bench of this court in CIT v. Times Business Solution Ltd., 2013:DHC:1783-DB. 8. Having regard to the factual position and the legal principles enunciated in the judgments referred to hereinabove, we are of the opinion that no interference is called f…

JT. CIT (ODS) - CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…resulting company i.e. the assessee. 51. The Ld.AR of the assessee, however, rebutted the aforesaid argument of the revenue and to lay emphasis on its contention, it referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao [155 ITR 152] wherein it has been held that in the case of succession, the successor steps into the shoes of the predecessor and therefore the deduction allowable to the predecessor would also be allowed to the successor. In that case, a business was transferred by an assessee to another and with such transferred business, the outstanding debtors also got tra…

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…resulting company i.e. the assessee. 51. The Ld.AR of the assessee, however, rebutted the aforesaid argument of the revenue and to lay emphasis on its contention, it referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao [155 ITR 152] wherein it has been held that in the case of succession, the successor steps into the shoes of the predecessor and therefore the deduction allowable to the predecessor would also be allowed to the successor. In that case, a business was transferred by an assessee to another and with such transferred business, the outstanding debtors also got tra…

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…resulting company i.e. the assessee. 51. The Ld.AR of the assessee, however, rebutted the aforesaid argument of the revenue and to lay emphasis on its contention, it referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao [155 ITR 152] wherein it has been held that in the case of succession, the successor steps into the shoes of the predecessor and therefore the deduction allowable to the predecessor would also be allowed to the successor. In that case, a business was transferred by an assessee to another and with such transferred business, the outstanding debtors also got tra…

M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT CIR-1(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…resulting company i.e. the assessee. 51. The Ld.AR of the assessee, however, rebutted the aforesaid argument of the revenue and to lay emphasis on its contention, it referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao [155 ITR 152] wherein it has been held that in the case of succession, the successor steps into the shoes of the predecessor and therefore the deduction allowable to the predecessor would also be allowed to the successor. In that case, a business was transferred by an assessee to another and with such transferred business, the outstanding debtors also got tra…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1935/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 10ASection 115JSection 391Section 72ASection 74

…fits or privileges that had accrued to the predecessor under the Act subject to the restrictions, if any, under the Act. 7. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. T. Veerabhadra Rao (1985) 155 ITR 152 (SC). In that case, a partnership firm took over the business of an earlier firm and all the assets and liabilities of the predecessor firm passed on to the successor firm. The assets included a certain amount of debt due from a certain party to the predecessor firm. Later on, the amount became bad and the successor assessee-firm claimed deduct…

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1857/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 10ASection 115JSection 391Section 72ASection 74

…fits or privileges that had accrued to the predecessor under the Act subject to the restrictions, if any, under the Act. 7. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. T. Veerabhadra Rao (1985) 155 ITR 152 (SC). In that case, a partnership firm took over the business of an earlier firm and all the assets and liabilities of the predecessor firm passed on to the successor firm. The assets included a certain amount of debt due from a certain party to the predecessor firm. Later on, the amount became bad and the successor assessee-firm claimed deduct…

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao (155 ITR 152) — Cited in 44 Judgments | BharatTax