Jogtacoal Company Ltd. v. CIT

36 ITR 521Reported decision1959#24651 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing Jogtacoal Company Ltd. v. CIT

Penta Media Graphics Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1402/CHNY/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…uld form part of sale consideration when the same business is continued by the transferee in the same magnitude in the years to come. The Assessing Officer also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jogtacoal Company Ltd. vs. CIT, 36 ITR 521, in support of his proposition that a portion of the consideration related to the transfer of goodwill. 3.4 The Assessing Officer has came to a conclusion that the assessee has transferred goodwill to its sister concern, proceeded to compute the 6 I.T.A. No. 1402/Chny/2015 amount of goodwill that has been transferred by the assessee to its siste…

Pitney Bowes India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

ITA 289/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32

…for allowing depreciation and not the cost to his predecessor/seller except where so required by specifically stated provision. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jogta Coal Co. Ltd versus CIT (1959) 36 ITR 521 and ruling of the privy Council in the case of CIT versus Indian iron and steel company limited (1943) 11 ITR 324. (iv) Such authorizations enabled the company to market the already approved models of electronic franking machines and related machines immediately and hence were of great value to the company. Therefore, even though KOAL did not pay…

Profile Gears & Engineering Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 286/CHNY/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2015AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.286/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

For Appellant: Shri. C. Srikanth, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, JCI.T

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 50B

…it was held that the right of the purchaser in a takeover of business to allocate the consideration as between the depreciable and non-depreciable assets cannot be diluted as long as the value is on an objective basis. Further in case of Jogta Coal Co. Ltd 36 ITR 521 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) it was been held that the cost of be calculated for the purpose of depreciation allowance is the cost to the assessee and not the person who makes the sale. In view of the above submissions it can be said that the total I.T.A.No.286/Mds/2014. :- 6 -: consideration should be apportioned on the basis of fair market value…