CIT v. Vijayalakshmi Metal Industries

256 ITR 540High Court2002#11374 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Vijayalakshmi Metal Industries

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 9 to 14 is allowed

ITA 2639/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 254(1)Section 45(4)Section 48

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2639/MUM/2025 (AY: 2012-13) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd (Physical hearing) 1st Floor, Apsara Cinema Building, Bhadkamkar Marg, Grant Road (E) Mumbai-400 007 PAN: AAACP0550H Appellant / Revenue Assessee by Revenue by Date of Institution Date of hearing Date of pronouncement DCIT, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai Vs Room No.624, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai Respondent / Assessee Shri J.D. Mistry, Senior Advocate with Shri Tanzil Padvekar, Advocate Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Narendra J.Bhimani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 411/RJT/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)

…9.02.2004 may therefore be considered as distribution of land by "R.AJasani & Co" and capital gain u/s 45(4) may be attracted in case of "R.A.Jasani & Co" in Assessment Year 2004-05. The Madras High Court in case of CIT v Vijayalakshmi Metal Industries (2002) 256 ITR 540 (Mad) held that the relevant date for ascertaining the year in which the tax is to be levied under section 45 is the year in which the transfer takes place. That year may or may not be the year in which the dissolution of the firm takes; place. The year in which the capital gain is to be brought to tax is "the previous year in which the said tran…

M/S. Bhaggyam Builders, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2614/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2614/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bhaggyam Builders, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 20, Raman Street, Vs. Income Tax, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle -1, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 2(47)Section 45Section 45(1)Section 45(4)

…ectively, counsel appearing for the assessees relied on the unreported decision of this Court in IT Ref. Nos. 235 and 236 of 1997, dt. 29th Feb., 2002 and that of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Vijayalakshmi Metal Industries (2002) 177 CTR (Mad) 43 : (2002) 256 ITR 540 (Mad). The Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee following the decision of other Tribunals. The Tribunal has taken the view that s. 2(47) defining "transfer" does not take in the case of dissolution of a firm and since s. 45(4) is not a self-contained code for assessment of capital gains arising from the transfer of capital assets…

The Hindustan Lungi Company, Chennai vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 618/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate
Section 45(4)

…Further, as per the assessee, a dissolution by operation of law would not result in a notional transfer of capital asset. For this argument reliance was placed on the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Vijayalakshmi Metal Industries 256 ITR 540. Further, as per assessee there was specific clause in the dissolution deed whereby partners agreed not to revalue the assets. Reliance was placed by the assessee on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Raman Lal Khanna vs. CIT 84 ITR 217 and that of judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of C…

ACIT 18(2), Mumbai vs. Keshav & Company, Mumbai

ITA 6276/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 45(4)

…r by way of distribution should be on dissolution of the firm or otherwise; (iv) In support of its contention, the assessee relied upon various judicial decision of the ITAT and also relied upon the following High Court decisions:-  CIT vs. Vijayalaxmi Metal 256 ITR 540 (Mad);  CIT vs. Kunnamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544 (Kar.);  CIT vs. Manglore Ganesh Beed Works 285 ITR 659 (Kar); (v) The assessee finally submitted that charging of such income in the hands of partnership would lead to absurd result as the same income has already been taxed in the hands of partner and the same will lead to double taxation of t…

Keshav and Company, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

ITA 5639/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 45(4)

…r by way of distribution should be on dissolution of the firm or otherwise; (iv) In support of its contention, the assessee relied upon various judicial decision of the ITAT and also relied upon the following High Court decisions:-  CIT vs. Vijayalaxmi Metal 256 ITR 540 (Mad);  CIT vs. Kunnamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544 (Kar.);  CIT vs. Manglore Ganesh Beed Works 285 ITR 659 (Kar); (v) The assessee finally submitted that charging of such income in the hands of partnership would lead to absurd result as the same income has already been taxed in the hands of partner and the same will lead to double taxation of t…

M/S. Guru Kripa Agro Foods, Haryana vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly

ITA 2188/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Girish Aneja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 142ASection 45(4)Section 55A

…igh Court in the case of Southern Tubes [supra], the ld. AR pointed out that the A.O in his remand report para 2(vi) has placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vijayalakshmi Metal Industries reported at 256 ITR 540 [Mds] and after considering the ratio of this decision, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Southern Tubes [supra] observed held that dissolution deed is an agreement and if the provisions of such deed provide for relinquishment of right of one partner on the assets, namely, immovable property in favour of another partner, then the l…

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)

…er gets is a shared interest in all the assets of the firm which is replaced by an exclusive interest in an asset of equal value. This judgment was in respect of an assessment before the amendment to section 45. In CIT v. Vijayalakshmi Metal Industries [2002] 256 ITR 540 (Mad.), the real issue before the learned single judge was as to when capital gain is to be brought to tax. The learned Judge held that until such time such capital asset is transferred by way of distribution of the assets on the dissolution of the firm no occasion arises for bringing to tax any capital gain on a transfer which has not taken plac…

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)

…er gets is a shared interest in all the assets of the firm which is replaced by an exclusive interest in an asset of equal value. This judgment was in respect of an assessment before the amendment to section 45. In CIT v. Vijayalakshmi Metal Industries [2002] 256 ITR 540 (Mad.), the real issue before the learned single judge was as to when capital gain is to be brought to tax. The learned Judge held that until such time such capital asset is transferred by way of distribution of the assets on the dissolution of the firm no occasion arises for bringing to tax any capital gain on a transfer which has not taken plac…