Commissioner of Income-tax v. Parrys (Eastern) (P.) Ltd.

384 ITR 264High Court2016#15762 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 50Section 112Section 115JBSection 135Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 194H

Issues it is cited on

section 2(42a)section 54esection 74section 112long-term capital assetperiod of holdingshort term capital gainssection 48written down valuesection 50section 54short term capital gain

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. Parrys (Eastern) (P.) Ltd.

Reliance Power Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Reliance Power Limited Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge City, Koperkhairane, Mumbai – 400020] Navi Mumbai-400710 [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Reliance Power Limited Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Reliance Centre, Ground Floor, 19 Vs Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai – 400020] [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 50

…apital asset for the purpose of section 50. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Manali Investments (2013) 39 taxmann.com 4 (Bom), CIT vs Parrys (Eastern) (P) Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 264 (Bombay) and CIT vs Pursarth Trading Co. (P) Ltd. (2013) 33 taxmann.com 482 (Bombay). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that copy of all said decision has already been placed on record. 15. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities…

Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3515/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 112Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

…fiction of section 50 cannot be imported u/s 112 of the Act. Thus, our analysis is in line with the judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court. 27. In another decision the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Parrys (Eastern) Pvt. Ltd, reported in 384 ITR 264, wherein following question of law was admitted for consideration of Hon’ble High Court; 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that capital gain arising from transfer of depreciable assets was liable to be set off against brought forward Long Term Capital Loss without…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3103/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

…court allowed deduction of investment made u/s 54E against capital gains taxable u/s 50 on depreciable assets. Similarly in Cadbury India Ltd 229 Taxman 05(Bom), tribunal allowing exemption u/s 54E was upheld. Similardecision was given in Perry(Estern) P.Ltd 384 ITR 264(Bom).In V.S.Dempo Co, Ltd 387 ITR 354,hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the view that deduction u/s 54E is allowable against gains assessable u/s 50 of the Act. 22. In respect of both the main ground no.1 and alternative ground no.2, we observe that the main reason for denial of deduction by the authorities below is that assessee has not filed revi…

Dy. CIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

ITA 3083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

…framed question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs 77. Further Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Parrys (Eastern) (P.) Ltd [2016] 384 ITR 264 held as under:- M/s. Asian Paints "6. We find that the issue stands concluded by the decision of this Court in ACE Builders (P) Ltd. 's case (supra) in favour of the Respondent-Assessee. Moreover, the impugned order relies upon the order of the Tribunal in Komac Investments & Finance (P) Ltd. 's case (supra) to dismiss the Revenue's appeal before…

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Claris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 295/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 295/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 The D.C.I.T, M/S Claris Lifesciences Limited, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. Claris Corporate Hq, Ahmedabad. Near Parimal Rly. Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacc6366Q

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.D.R
Section 50Section 54ESection 70Section 74

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 295/AHD/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 The D.C.I.T, M/s Claris Lifesciences Limited, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. Claris Corporate HQ, Ahmedabad. Near Parimal Rly. Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. PAN: AAACC6366Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.D.R Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/01/2024…

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Transport and Travels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh YadavFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar
Section 143(3)

…High Court has held that for the purpose of exemption under Section 54E of the Act, it has to be treated as Long term capital gains. Later on, the same principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Parrys (Eastern) (P) Ltd., 384 ITR 264 (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that if deemed Short term capital gains is arising on account of sale of a depreciable asset that was held for a period to which Long term capital gains will apply, then, said gain would be set- off against brought forward Long Term Capital Loss and unabsorbed depreciation. Further, in case CIT vs Ma…

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Parrys (Eastern) (P.) Ltd. (384 ITR 264) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax