Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT

120 ITR 49Supreme Court of India1979#5331 most cited

What is Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT authority for?

Distribution, division, or allotment of assets to partners upon dissolution of a firm is a mutual adjustment of rights and not a transfer of assets by the firm, as the firm does not hold separate rights in partnership assets.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT · 120 ITR 49 · dissolution of firm · distribution of assets to partners · mutual adjustment of rights · no transfer of assets · extinguishment of rights

Also reported as

2 Taxmann 409

Sections most often in play

Section 45(4)Section 143(3)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 292CSection 45(1)Section 47(ii)

Issues it is cited on

construction pepenalty under section 271dsection 269tsection 269sdomestic companysection 273section 48section 269sssection 273bsection 271dsection 269section 45

Judgments citing Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT

HEMANT NARESH AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 170/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआ.(खो और ज).सं /It(Ss)A No.68 & 70/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Hemant Naresh Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Vs. Surat Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat-395 010 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.170/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hemant Naresh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Surat-395 010 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69

…f assets between partners of a firm consequent on its dissolution amounts to a mutual adjustment of rights of the partners and such transaction was neither a sale nor exchange nor transfer of assets of the firm. Further in Malabar Fisheries Co. vs. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 49 (SC), it was held that there was no transfer in terms of extinguishment of rights of the Firm in the Capital asset when the capital asset is distributed to the partner on dissolution. In Addl. CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai (1987) 165 ITR 166 (SC) Supreme Court had approved the decision of Gujarat HC in CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai, [1973] 91 ITR 393 (G…

ABUSHA INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3417/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr.Bhabagrahi Dash, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45(1)Section 45(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3417/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 v. Abusha Investment & Management The DCIT, Services LLP, Non Corporate Circle-7(1), 27, Mylai Ranganathan Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [PAN: AAZFA 6631 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Bhabagrahi Dash, CA ""यथ" क" ओ…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. CHETANAYA PROMOTERS AND DEVLOPERS,, JABALPUR

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the Revenue as well as appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 133/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 292BSection 43C

…that the assessee has made unexplained investment of Rs. 6 lacs in its office furniture, fixture etc and confirming the addition made by the ld AO to that extent. 7. In view of hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Malabar Fishries Company v CIT 1969| 120 ITR 49, CIT v Dewa Cine Corporation [1968] 68 ITR 240, and CIT v Bakelal Vaidya [1971] 79 ITR 594 and hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of CIT v Moped and Machines 2006] 281 ITR 52 and hon ble ITAT Jabalpur Bench decision in the case of ACIT v Thermoflics India [1997] 60 ITD 554 the ld CIT(A) was fully justified in holding that the p…

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

ITA 1119/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)(a)Section 68Section 69B

…. submitted that the AO has treated the amount received by the assessee on his retirement from the Firm as consideration for relinquishment of his right in the Goodwill and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed it. He submitted that in Malabar Fisheries v. CIT, (1979) 120 ITR 49 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained that the firm as such has no separate rights of its own in the partnership assets and that it is the partners who own ‘jointly by or in common’ the assets of the partnership and, therefore, the consequence of the distribution, division or allotment of assets to the partners which flows upon dissolution…

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

ITA 1117/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)(a)Section 68Section 69B

…. submitted that the AO has treated the amount received by the assessee on his retirement from the Firm as consideration for relinquishment of his right in the Goodwill and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed it. He submitted that in Malabar Fisheries v. CIT, (1979) 120 ITR 49 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained that the firm as such has no separate rights of its own in the partnership assets and that it is the partners who own ‘jointly by or in common’ the assets of the partnership and, therefore, the consequence of the distribution, division or allotment of assets to the partners which flows upon dissolution…

JICE ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…pon the following decisions : CIT vs. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai 1977 CTR (SC) 71 : (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC), Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172 : (1985) 156 ITR 509/23 Taxman 14W (SC), Malabar Fisheries Co. vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 415 : (1979) 120 ITR 49 : (1979) 2 Taxman 409 (SC), ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar (1996) 134 CTR (SC) 167 : (1996) 220 ITR 232 : (1996) 86 Taxman 330 (SC), 74 ITR 526JGuj (sic), CIT vs. Madhukant M. Mehta (1980) 19 CTR (Guj) 130 : (1981) 132 ITR 159 : (1981) 5 Taxman 11 (Guj), Vir Sales Corpn. vs. Asstt. CIT (1994) 121 CTR (Trib)(Ahd) 46 : (1994) 50 TTJ (Ahd) 130 and Mohama…

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR vs. M/S SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

C.A. No.-004928 - 2018Supreme Court11 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 65Section 73Section 75Section 76Section 77Section 78

…a company. The name of a partnership firm is a compendious method of describing the partners in a partnership firm as was laid down in Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar, [1955] 27 ITR 1 (SC), Dulichand Laxminarayan, [1956] 29 ITR 535 (SC) and Malabar Fisheries Co., [1979] 120 ITR 49 (SC). It is distinct from a company, a juristic person distinct from its shareholders; whereas a partnership firm comprises the partners and has no separate entity or existence without the partners. According to section 4 of the Partnership Act, 1932, a “firm” means persons entering into partnership with another collectively called a firm, a compe…

TREE HILL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1395/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…he goodwill created by revaluation received by the retiring partner as part of reconstitution is not liable to tax:- (i) Mohanbhai Pamabhai (1973) 91 ITR 393 (Guj) (ii) CIT v. Bankey Lal Vaidya (1971) 79 ITR 594 (SC) (iii) Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 49 (SC) (iv) Tribhuvandas G. Patel v. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 515 (SC) (v) CIT v. Karnataka Agro Chemicals (2014) 49 taxmann.com 324 (Kar) Page 6 of 20 (vi) Savitri Kadur v. DCIT (2019) 106 taxmann.com 314 (Bang. Trib.) (vii) New Kamlesh Jewellers v. ITO (2011) 9 taxmann.com 204 (Mum) 14. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee retired from the partnershi…

KARNATAKA AGROCHEMICAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-4(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

…pon the following decisions : CIT vs. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai 1977 CTR (SC) 71 : (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC), Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172 : (1985) 156 ITR 509/23 Taxman 14W (SC), Malabar Fisheries Co. vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 415 : (1979) 120 ITR 49 : (1979) 2 Taxman 409 (SC), ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar (1996) 134 CTR (SC) 167 : (1996) 220 ITR 232 : (1996) 86 330 (SC), 74 ITR 526 (Guj) Taxman (sic), CIT vs. Madhukant M. Mehta (1980) 19 CTR (Guj) 130 : (1981) 132 ITR 159 : (1981) 5 Taxman 11 (Guj), Vir Sales Corpn. vs. Asstt. CIT (1994) 121 CTR (Trib)(Ahd) 46 : (1994) 50 TTJ (Ahd) 130 and Moha…

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

…ng decisions : CIT vs. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai 1977 CTR (SC) 71 : (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC), Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172 : (1985) 156 ITR 509/23 Taxman 14W (SC), Malabar Fisheries Co. vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 415 : Page 18 of 37 (1979) 120 ITR 49 : (1979) 2 Taxman 409 (SC), ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar (1996) 134 CTR (SC) 167 : (1996) 220 ITR 232 : (1996) 86 330 (SC), 74 ITR 526JGuj) Taxman (sic), CIT vs. Madhukant M. Mehta (1980) 19 CTR (Guj) 130 : (1981) 132 ITR 159 : (1981) 5 Taxman 11 (Guj), Vir Sales Corpn. vs. Asstt. CIT (1994) 121 CTR (Trib)(Ahd) 46 : (1994) 50 TTJ (Ahd) 130 and Moham…

DHARAMTAR MOTORS SERVICES PETROLEUM PRODUCT,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1438/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1438 & 2534/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S Dharamtar Motor Services Income Tax Officer, Petroleum Product, Vs. Ward 6(1)(4) C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate 903, Ahmedabad. Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabfd9182F

For Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’C’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 1438 & 2534/AHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/s Dharamtar Motor Services Income Tax Officer, Petroleum Product, Vs. Ward 6(1)(4) C/o. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate 903, Ahmedabad. Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. PAN: AABFD9182F (Applicant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri Ketan Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 22/10/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 3055/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 45(5)

…y like payment of taxes of the Government, BMC etc., payment to unsecured creditors etc. This difference is very important. This difference is amply brought out conceptually in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofMalabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT [1979]120 ITR 49. Therefore, it is most respectfully submitted that section 45(4) is not attracted as the very first condition of transfer by way of distribution of capital assets is not satisfied. In the circumstances, the latter part of section 45(4), which refers to computation of capital gains under section 48 by treating fair market value of the asset on the…

M/S. VISHAL ENGINEERS & GALVANIZERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2945/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 45(5)

…y like payment of taxes of the Government, BMC etc., payment to unsecured creditors etc. This difference is very important. This difference is amply brought out conceptually in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofMalabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT [1979]120 ITR 49. Therefore, it is most respectfully submitted that section 45(4) is not attracted as the very first condition of transfer by way of distribution of capital assets is not satisfied. In the circumstances, the latter part of section 45(4), which refers to computation of capital gains under section 48 by treating fair market value of the asset on the…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2316/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 45(5)

…y like payment of taxes of the Government, BMC etc., payment to unsecured creditors etc. This difference is very important. This difference is amply brought out conceptually in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofMalabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT [1979]120 ITR 49. Therefore, it is most respectfully submitted that section 45(4) is not attracted as the very first condition of transfer by way of distribution of capital assets is not satisfied. In the circumstances, the latter part of section 45(4), which refers to computation of capital gains under section 48 by treating fair market value of the asset on the…

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

…ecified bonds and therefore the AO allowed deduction upto Rs.50 lacs. Therefore there would no capital gain which is chargeable to tax. 32. With regard to case laws cited on behalf of the Assessee, they are as follows: 1 Malabar Fisheries Co. Vs. CIT [1979] 120 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…

RAM KRISHAN KULWANT RAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1047/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1047/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 132Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 4

…Madras High Court, according to the Ld. counsel, is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 8. The Ld.counsel for the assessee has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT 10 I.T.A. No.1047/Chny/18 (1979) 120 ITR 49. The Ld.counsel has also invited our attention to Section 45(4) of the Act and submitted that in case of dissolution and distribution of capital asset, the gain arising may be chargeable to capital gain. In this case, according to the Ld. counsel, it is a case of succession and not a case of dissolution and distribution. Therefore, in view of judg…

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4370/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…like payment of taxes to the Government, BMC etc., payment to unsecured creditors etc. This difference is very important. This difference is amply brought out conceptually in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT[1979] 120 ITR 49 2 Taxman 409. In the present case, therefore, we are of the view that Section 45(4) is not attracted as the very first condition of transfer by way of distribution of capital assets is not satisfied. In the circumstances, the latter part of Section 45(4), which refers to computation of capital gains under Section 48 by treating fair market value o…

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3237/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…like payment of taxes to the Government, BMC etc., payment to unsecured creditors etc. This difference is very important. This difference is amply brought out conceptually in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT[1979] 120 ITR 49 2 Taxman 409. In the present case, therefore, we are of the view that Section 45(4) is not attracted as the very first condition of transfer by way of distribution of capital assets is not satisfied. In the circumstances, the latter part of Section 45(4), which refers to computation of capital gains under Section 48 by treating fair market value o…

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

ITA 2906/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…like payment of taxes to the Government, BMC etc., payment to unsecured creditors etc. This difference is very important. This difference is amply brought out conceptually in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT[1979] 120 ITR 49 2 Taxman 409. In the present case, therefore, we are of the view that Section 45(4) is not attracted as the very first condition of transfer by way of distribution of capital assets is not satisfied. In the circumstances, the latter part of Section 45(4), which refers to computation of capital gains under Section 48 by treating fair market value o…

M/S. BHAGGYAM BUILDERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2614/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2614/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bhaggyam Builders, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 20, Raman Street, Vs. Income Tax, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle -1, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 2(47)Section 45Section 45(1)Section 45(4)

…of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of the capital asset. :-8-: 6.2.5 In the case of dissolution where partners are allotted capital assets of the firm, it was held that there was no transfer. In Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 49 /2 Taxman 409, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the nature of distribution of assets of a partnership on dissolution amongst its partners and as to whether such distribution of assets would constitute transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the IT Act as follows : "A partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not a…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT (120 ITR 49) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax