Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bom) 6) Chalasani Venkatsara Rao v. ITO

171 ITR 128High Court1988#11188 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 45(4)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 45(2)Section 28(\u03bd)

Issues it is cited on

section 45transfersection 143(3)

Judgments citing Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bom) 6) Chalasani Venkatsara Rao v. ITO

M/S. Anand Diagnostic Laboratory, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 969/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Netrapal M S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143Section 143(3)

…o distinction can be drawn between an amount received by the partner on the dissolution of the ITA Nos.968 & 969/Bang/2024 Page 28 of 35 firm and that received on his retirement, since both of them stand on the same footing. 22. In CIT v. P. H. Patel [1988] 171 ITR 128 (A.P.), a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court noticed that the judgment in CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393 (Guj.) was approved by the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 (SC), and following the judgment in CIT v. L. Raghu Kumar [1983] 141 ITR 674/[1982] 11 Taxman 163 (A.P.) held that when a…

M/S. Anand Diagnostic Laboratory, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 968/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Netrapal M S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143Section 143(3)

…o distinction can be drawn between an amount received by the partner on the dissolution of the ITA Nos.968 & 969/Bang/2024 Page 28 of 35 firm and that received on his retirement, since both of them stand on the same footing. 22. In CIT v. P. H. Patel [1988] 171 ITR 128 (A.P.), a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court noticed that the judgment in CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393 (Guj.) was approved by the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 (SC), and following the judgment in CIT v. L. Raghu Kumar [1983] 141 ITR 674/[1982] 11 Taxman 163 (A.P.) held that when a…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Jayshree Shailesh Savla, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal o

ITA 2304/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Jayshree Shailesh Savla, Room No. 216, 2Nd Floor, A/7, Mani Bhavan, Swastik Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Society N S Road, No. 3, Bandra East, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aksps 2546 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: None
Section 54F

…e in its capital account, the same shall not be chargeable to tax. A similar capital account, the same shall not be chargeable to tax. A similar capital account, the same shall not be chargeable to tax. A similar view was taken in (i) CIT v.P.H. Patel, (1988) 171 ITR 128 (AP) (ii) view was taken in (i) CIT v.P.H. Patel, (1988) 171 ITR 128 (AP) (ii) view was taken in (i) CIT v.P.H. Patel, (1988) 171 ITR 128 (AP) (ii) Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO, (2010) 324 ITR 154. Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO, (2010) 324 ITR 154. 7.2.3. In Principal Commissione 7.2.3. In Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central tax, Central-2, Mumb…

M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4882/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

…an Bhai Pama Bhai (1973) 91 ITR 393 (Guj.) has held that no transfer is involved when a retiring partner receives at the time of retirement from the firm, his share in the partnership asset either in cash or any other asset. The ratio laid down in P.H. Patel (171 ITR 128) wherein it was held that when a partner retires from a partnership taking his share of partnership interest, there is no element of transfer of interest in the partnership asset by the retiring partner. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and the circumstances by applying the ratio laid down by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the c…

ITO - 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

…an Bhai Pama Bhai (1973) 91 ITR 393 (Guj.) has held that no transfer is involved when a retiring partner receives at the time of retirement from the firm, his share in the partnership asset either in cash or any other asset. The ratio laid down in P.H. Patel (171 ITR 128) wherein it was held that when a partner retires from a partnership taking his share of partnership interest, there is no element of transfer of interest in the partnership asset by the retiring partner. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and the circumstances by applying the ratio laid down by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the c…

Mdlr Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8215/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…TR 594 3) CIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 165 ITR166 4) Tribhuvan G. Patel Vs. CIT 236 ITR 515 5) Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bom) 6) Chalasani Venkatsara Rao Vs. ITO 349 ITR 423 (A) 7) CIT Vs. L. Raghu Kumar 141 ITR 674 (AP) 8) CIT Vs. P. H. Patel 171 ITR 128 (AP) 9) CIT Vs. G. Seshagiri Rao 213 ITR 304 (AP) 10) Bankey Lal Vaidya Vs. CIT 55 ITR 400 (All) 11) CIT Vs. Kunamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544 (Ker) 16. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that there is no estoppel against statue and mere declaration of capital gain in the return cannot be a ground to make addition on account…

Mdlr Builders P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8214/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…TR 594 3) CIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 165 ITR166 4) Tribhuvan G. Patel Vs. CIT 236 ITR 515 5) Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bom) 6) Chalasani Venkatsara Rao Vs. ITO 349 ITR 423 (A) 7) CIT Vs. L. Raghu Kumar 141 ITR 674 (AP) 8) CIT Vs. P. H. Patel 171 ITR 128 (AP) 9) CIT Vs. G. Seshagiri Rao 213 ITR 304 (AP) 10) Bankey Lal Vaidya Vs. CIT 55 ITR 400 (All) 11) CIT Vs. Kunamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544 (Ker) 16. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that there is no estoppel against statue and mere declaration of capital gain in the return cannot be a ground to make addition on account…

Smt. Savitri Kadur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 1700/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 2(47)Section 45Section 54E

…0 ITR 49 (SC) 93-101 2 ACIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 (SC) 102 3 ACIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393 (Guj) 103-111 4 CIT V Legal Representatives of N Paliniappa Gounder [1983] 143 ITR 343 (Madras) 112-115 5 CIT Vs. P.H Patel [1988] 171 ITR 128 (Andhra Pradesh) 116-121 Page 19 of 23 6 CIT V Madan Lal Bhargava [1980] 122 ITR 545 (Allahabad) 122-125 7 ACIT Vs. Sri Mahinderpal Bhasin [1979] 117 ITR 26 (Allahabad) 126-129 8 CIT Vs. Krishnamoorthy [1998] 229 ITR 559 (Madras) 130-132 9 CIT Vs. L Raghu Kumar [1982] 141 ITR 674 (Andhra Pradesh) 133-136 10 CIT Vs. Lingmallu Raghukumar [2001]…

Anant B. Tawade, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6362/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6362/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Anand B. Tawade, Ito – 17(3)(1), बनाम/ 106, Roop Rayon Mill Piramal Chambers, V. Compound, Lalbaug, Near Datt Mandir, Mumbai. Jijamata Nagar, Kalachowki, Mumbai – 400 033. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Acdpt 9937A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)

…essee also relied upon the following judicial decisions:- 1) Addl. CIT v. Snt Mahenderpal Bhasin (1979) 117 ITR 26 (All). 2) CIT v. Bhupinder Singh Atwal (1981) 128 ITR 67 (Cal). 3) CIT v. Madanlal Bharqava (1980) 122 ITR 545 (All). 4) CIT v. Pate P H (1988) 171 ITR 128 (AP). 5) CIT v. Raghukumar (1983) 141 ITR 674 (AP) 6) Prashant S Joshi v. ITO (2010) 189 Taxman 1 (Bom) The A.O. observed that the assessee has received goodwill of Rs.75,53,858/- it was claimed as share of capital on retirement of partnership firm M/s Gurukripa Realtors. The AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to M/s Gurukripa Realtors and t…