ITO v. Shreyans Investments Private Limited

141 ITD 672Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#19104 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 28(iv)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 19 of Companies ActSection 2(1B)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 2(47)

Issues it is cited on

transferor companyscheme of arrangementdemergeramalgamationfair market valuesection 23income from other sourcessection 115section 11transferpersoncompany

Judgments citing ITO v. Shreyans Investments Private Limited

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Samagra Wealthmax Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2165/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT
Section 19Section 41(1)

…of profession. The difference amount post- amalgamation was the amalgamation reserve, and it could not he said that It is out of normal transaction of the business." 7.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of ITO vs Shreyans Investments Private Limited 141 ITD 672 (Kolkata-Tribunal) relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra ang Mahindra 261 ITR 501 (Bom.) had taken a view that reserve arising out of amalgamation cannot be treated as income under section 28(iv) of the Income- Samagra Walthmax Private Limited; A.Y. 2018-19 Tax Act, 1961. The relevant extracts of the sai…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Buhari Holdings Privae Limited, Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.325/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, No.4, Buhari Towers, Corporate Circle 1(2) Moores Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan Aaacb 2679M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 28

…lity of provisions of Section 28(iv), it is not necessary that the benefit or perquisite must arise from the business or the exercise of profession carried on by the recipient. The ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of ITO vs Shreyans Investments Private Limited 141 ITD 672 (Kolkata-Tribunal) relying on the decision of the Honorable Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra 261 ITR 501 (Bom.) had taken a view that reserve arising out of amalgamation cannot be treated as income under section 28(iv) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The decision of the Honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and M…

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…an accumulated profit (CIT Vs STADS Ltd (2015) (373 ITR 313/61 taxmann.com 33)(Mad) (Para 11, Pg. 566, Pg. 564-567 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II) and ITO VsShreyans ITA Nos. 1935/MUM/2020 & 41/MUM/2021 Grasim Industries Ltd. 2018-19 Investments (P) Ltd (2013) (141 ITD 672)(T) (Kol) (Para 8, Pg. 573, Pg. 568-575 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II). Further on an imaginary situation, deeming provisions cannot be invoke a deeming section. Reliance is placed on CIT Vs. Moon Mills Ltd 59 ITR 574 (SC) (Pg. 552, Pg. 548-554 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II), CIT Vs. KhimjiNanshy 194 ITR 192 (Bom HC) (Para 10, Pg. 557, Pg. 555-557…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…an accumulated profit (CIT Vs STADS Ltd (2015) (373 ITR 313/61 taxmann.com 33)(Mad) (Para 11, Pg. 566, Pg. 564-567 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II) and ITO VsShreyans ITA Nos. 1935/MUM/2020 & 41/MUM/2021 Grasim Industries Ltd. 2018-19 Investments (P) Ltd (2013) (141 ITD 672)(T) (Kol) (Para 8, Pg. 573, Pg. 568-575 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II). Further on an imaginary situation, deeming provisions cannot be invoke a deeming section. Reliance is placed on CIT Vs. Moon Mills Ltd 59 ITR 574 (SC) (Pg. 552, Pg. 548-554 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II), CIT Vs. KhimjiNanshy 194 ITR 192 (Bom HC) (Para 10, Pg. 557, Pg. 555-557…

ITO v. Shreyans Investments Private Limited (141 ITD 672) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax