ITO v. Fine Developers

55 SOT 122Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#21063 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 2(47)Section 45 Section 45(4)Section 9B Section 45(3)

Judgments citing ITO v. Fine Developers

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Manikandan, Chennai

ITA 2986/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2986/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. Manikandan, Vs. No.15/16/17, Vision Towers, 2Nd Floor, Yogam Garden, Valasarvakkam, Chennai - 600 087. Pan: Behpm 6583A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 16.02.2026 Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: आदेश / Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 26.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2 The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Of An Amount Of Rs.2,98,29,315/- Credited In Assessee'S Capital Account By M/S Crcl Llp, In Which Assessee Is A Partner, For Sacrificing / Relinquishing - 2 -:

Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

…ts as assets remained with firm and therefore, no capital gain arises on alignment of a part of profit sharing ratio on introduction of new partners in firm. Further, in the case of ITO v. Fine Developers in ITA No. 4630(Mum)/2011 dated 12.10.2012 reported in 55 SOT 122 (Mumbai), the Tribunal held that mere admission of new partner into partnership firm without there being any transfer of asset of firm in his favour would not attract provisions of section 45(4) of the Act. In the case of Anik Industries Ltd. v. DCIT [2020] 116 taxmann.com 385 (Mumbai), by following the decision in the case of CIT v. P.N. Panjawan…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. Sathyabama Ramachandran, Alwarthirunagar

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghava Simhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasam, JCIT

Section 147Section 148

Indian Extrusions, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1994/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Indian Extrusions Acit-24(3) B-316/317, Virwani Industrial Vs. Mumbai. Estate,Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400 063 (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…amounts by the partners cannot be construed as distribution of assets by the firm. It was pointed out by the ld. A.R that the Tribunal while concluding as hereinabove had referred to the order of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITO Vs. Fine Developers, 55 SOT 122 (Mum), wherein after considering the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. A. N. Naik Associates (2004) 265 ITR 346 (Bom), it was held that the transfer of a capital asset was a pre-condition for invoking the provisions of Sec. 45(4) of the Act. It was also observed that such a transfer should take place at the time o…

DCIT 24(1), Mumbai vs. Vaibhav Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 3052/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosaindcit, Circle 24(1) M/S. Vaibhav Industries C-13, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan 103, Tulsi Niwas, Pushtikar Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Co-Operative Society Jogeshwari (W) Mumbai 400012 Pan - Aadfv5521A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Javed AkhtarFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 45(4)Section 48

…orm was given or credited to the accounts of retiring partners. The appellant had relied on the following decisions, which support the case of the appellant: - (a) Decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of ITO vs Fine Developers (55 SOT 122) wherein it was held that provisions of 45(4) of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked unless there is distribution of any capital asset by the, firm. . b) Recent case of CIT vs M/s Dynamic Enterprises (Order passed on 16/09/2013 - I.T.A. No. 1414/2006), wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka, High Court has stated that "When a retiring partner takes only m…