Commissioner of Income Tax v. Electric Control Gear Manf. Co.

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…onnected with the facts of the present case and the assessee has cited these cases completely out of context. Nevertheless, it may be noted here that the supreme court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electric Control Gear Manf. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 278 (SC) distinguished its own decision in Artex Manufacturing Co 227 ITR 260(SC) by holding that "there was nothing to indicate the price attributable to the assets like Machinery, plant or building out of the total sales consideration amount and merely because depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amoun…

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGINE & HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…onnected with the facts of the present case and the assessee has cited these cases completely out of context. Nevertheless, it may be noted here that the supreme court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electric Control Gear Manf. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 278 (SC) distinguished its own decision in Artex Manufacturing Co 227 ITR 260(SC) by holding that "there was nothing to indicate the price attributable to the assets like Machinery, plant or building out of the total sales consideration amount and merely because depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amoun…

ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGINENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…onnected with the facts of the present case and the assessee has cited these cases completely out of context. Nevertheless, it may be noted here that the supreme court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electric Control Gear Manf. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 278 (SC) distinguished its own decision in Artex Manufacturing Co 227 ITR 260(SC) by holding that "there was nothing to indicate the price attributable to the assets like Machinery, plant or building out of the total sales consideration amount and merely because depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amoun…

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…onnected with the facts of the present case and the assessee has cited these cases completely out of context. Nevertheless, it may be noted here that the supreme court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electric Control Gear Manf. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 278 (SC) distinguished its own decision in Artex Manufacturing Co 227 ITR 260(SC) by holding that "there was nothing to indicate the price attributable to the assets like Machinery, plant or building out of the total sales consideration amount and merely because depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amoun…

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. CIR. 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…onnected with the facts of the present case and the assessee has cited these cases completely out of context. Nevertheless, it may be noted here that the supreme court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electric Control Gear Manf. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 278 (SC) distinguished its own decision in Artex Manufacturing Co 227 ITR 260(SC) by holding that "there was nothing to indicate the price attributable to the assets like Machinery, plant or building out of the total sales consideration amount and merely because depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amoun…

ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…onnected with the facts of the present case and the assessee has cited these cases completely out of context. Nevertheless, it may be noted here that the supreme court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electric Control Gear Manf. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 278 (SC) distinguished its own decision in Artex Manufacturing Co 227 ITR 260(SC) by holding that "there was nothing to indicate the price attributable to the assets like Machinery, plant or building out of the total sales consideration amount and merely because depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amoun…

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

…sets constituting the undertaking. 85. The provisions of section 50B are in consonance with the two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Artex Mfg. Co. [1997] 227 ITR 260/93 Taxman 357 and CIT v. Electric Control Gear Mfg. Co. [1997] 227 ITR 278/93 Taxman 121 ITA.No. 3139 & 3178/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12) M/s. ACC Limited 384. In both these cases, one of the issues for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the surplus received by the assessee on sale of the entire business as a going concern was taxable under section 41(2). In the first case, the Supreme Court held that since…

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

…sets constituting the undertaking. 85. The provisions of section 50B are in consonance with the two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Artex Mfg. Co. [1997] 227 ITR 260/93 Taxman 357 and CIT v. Electric Control Gear Mfg. Co. [1997] 227 ITR 278/93 Taxman 121 ITA.No. 3139 & 3178/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12) M/s. ACC Limited 384. In both these cases, one of the issues for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the surplus received by the assessee on sale of the entire business as a going concern was taxable under section 41(2). In the first case, the Supreme Court held that since…

ACC LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT - LTU, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ets constituting the undertaking. 123. The provisions of section 50B are in consonance with the two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Artex Mfg. Co. [1997] 227 ITR 260/93 Taxman 357 and CIT v. Electric Control Gear Mfg. Co. [1997] 227 ITR 278/93 Taxman 384. In both these cases, one of the issues for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the surplus received by the assessee on sale of the entire business as a going concern was taxable under section 41(2). In the first case, the Supreme Court held that since the price attributable to plant and machinery and dead stock which…

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ets constituting the undertaking. 123. The provisions of section 50B are in consonance with the two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Artex Mfg. Co. [1997] 227 ITR 260/93 Taxman 357 and CIT v. Electric Control Gear Mfg. Co. [1997] 227 ITR 278/93 Taxman 384. In both these cases, one of the issues for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the surplus received by the assessee on sale of the entire business as a going concern was taxable under section 41(2). In the first case, the Supreme Court held that since the price attributable to plant and machinery and dead stock which…

ACC LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ets constituting the undertaking. 123. The provisions of section 50B are in consonance with the two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Artex Mfg. Co. [1997] 227 ITR 260/93 Taxman 357 and CIT v. Electric Control Gear Mfg. Co. [1997] 227 ITR 278/93 Taxman 384. In both these cases, one of the issues for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the surplus received by the assessee on sale of the entire business as a going concern was taxable under section 41(2). In the first case, the Supreme Court held that since the price attributable to plant and machinery and dead stock which…

ORICON ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

…isure and retail products, on a going concern basis. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. D.R. relied on the decision of CIT vs. Artex Manufacturing Co. (1997) 227 ITR 260 (SC) and CIT vs. Electric Control Gear Mfg. Co. [1997] 227 ITR 278 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that surplus realized on sale of depreciable asset to the extent of the difference between the written down value and the actual cost being the depreciation actually allowed would be chargeable to tax as deemed business profits under section 41 (2) and the excess over the actual cost of the capital as…

ADDL CIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

…fer is determined as a lumpsum amount by mutual agreement between the parties to the transaction. The issue has been decided by the Supreme Court In the two Judgments in CIT vs. Artex Mfg. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 260 (SC) and CIT vs. Electric Control Gear Mfg. Co. 227 ITR 278 (SC) ) and a perusal of both the decisions of the Supreme Court would show that the surplus realized on sale of depreciable asset to the extent of the difference between the written down value and the actual cost being the depreciation actually allowed would be chargeable to tax as deemed business profits under section 41 (2) and the excess over…

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

…fer is determined as a lumpsum amount by mutual agreement between the parties to the transaction. The issue has been decided by the Supreme Court In the two Judgments in CIT vs. Artex Mfg. Co. (1997) 227 ITR 260 (SC) and CIT vs. Electric Control Gear Mfg. Co. 227 ITR 278 (SC) ) and a perusal of both the decisions of the Supreme Court would show that the surplus realized on sale of depreciable asset to the extent of the difference between the written down value and the actual cost being the depreciation actually allowed would be chargeable to tax as deemed business profits under section 41 (2) and the excess over…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3, MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No./4442/Mum/2010 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit - Range 2(2) Room No. 577, 5Th Floor L&T House, N.M. Marg Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aaacl0140P Mumbai-400020 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No./4599/Mum/2013 ,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 वष" Dcit - Range 2(2) M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Mumbai-400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Mukund Chate Assessee By: Shri J.D. Mistry सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.26.03.20130Of The Cit(A)-5,Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Construction, Manufacturing Of Heavy Machinery & Cement, Etc., Filed It Return Of Income On,27.11.1998,Declaring Income Of Rs.37.20 Crores.The Ao Complet -Ed The Assessment,On 28.02.2001, Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,09,15,37,490/-.

…the assessee the marketing function was always forming part of overall marketing activities of the company. He referred to the pages 256-278 of the paper book and relied upon the cases of PNB Finance Ltd.(307ITR57),Electric Control Gear Manufacturing Company (227 ITR 278) and Novartis India Ltd.(64SOT84).He fairly conceded that the loss claimed by the assessee for with regard to slump sale was not allowable.The DR contended that the whole unit was not sold as a going concern,that other units like marketing unit remained with the assessee,that purchaser JV had the assessee as one of the partners,that facts of the…

M/S. THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-29, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7524/Mum/2007 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) The Supreme Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Cc-29, 612, Raheja Chambers, 213, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 1344 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Alok Johri सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2004-2005. 2. First Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Taxing Of Capital Gains Amounting To Rs.10,30,06,590/- U/S.50B R.W.S.2(42C) Arising On The Transfer Of The Bopp Films Undertaking To Xpro India Ltd. (Xil). 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. This Ground Relates To Taxation Of Capital Gains Amounting To Rs.10,30,06,590/- U/S.50B Read With Section 2(42C) Of The I.T. Act. The Facts In Brief Relating To This Addition Are That During The Previous Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Entered Into A Business Transfer Agreement (Bta) With Xpro India Ltd (Xil) For Sale Of Its Bopp Films Undertaking At Pithampur, Madhya Pradesh As A Going-Concern For A Total

…sion of the ARs and the facts on record. I have also carefully perused the decisions relied upon by the ARs. The decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Artex Manufacturing Co. 227 ITR 260 (SC) and CIT vs. Electric Control Gear Manufacturing Co. 227 ITR 278(SC) does not help the case of the appellant as these decisions were given prior to the introduction of section 50B in the IT. Act and were with reference to section 41(2) of the IT. Act. As regards the decisions in the case of Karnbli Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. vs. JCIT 83 ITD 460 (Bangalore), it is found that the facts of that case are not…

M/S. MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT SPL. RG. - 20, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4597/Mum/2005 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000)

…he Tribunal order. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions : a) Premier Automobiles Ltd V/s ITO (264 ITR 193)(Bom); b) M/s Artex Manufacturing Company reported in 227 ITR 260 (SC) ; c) CIT V/s Electric Control Gear Mfg.Co. 227 ITR 278 (SC); and d) CIT V/s Asea Brown Boveri Ltd 11 TTJ 502 (Mum). and submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in the light of the above precedents. 30. The ld. DR did not object to the plea putforth by the ld.AR. 31. After hearing both the parties and perusal of the record on this issue, we find that the ass…