N.A. Modi v. CIT

162 ITR 420High Court1986#10231 most cited

What is N.A. Modi v. CIT authority for?

The transaction of a partner receiving an amount on retirement from a firm, even if it involves the value of goodwill, is not a distribution of capital assets upon dissolution of the firm.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

N.A. Modi v. CIT · retirement from partnership · share of goodwill · capital assets · dissolution of firm · Bombay High Court · taxability

Also reported as

24 Taxmann 219

Judgments citing N.A. Modi v. CIT

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

…avour of the continuing partners and the transaction cannot be regarded as amounting to any distribution of capital assets upon dissolution of a firm. The above decision was followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the other two cases of N.A. Modi Vs. CIT 162 ITR 420(Bom) and CIT Vs. H.R. Aslot 115 ITR 255(Bom). 28.7 As against the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tribhuvandas G. Patel (supra), the Assessee preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tribhuvandas G. Patel Vs. CIT 236 ITR 515 (SC) framed three questions of law for cons…

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

…avour of the continuing partners and the transaction cannot be regarded as amounting to any distribution of capital assets upon dissolution of a firm. The above decision was followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the other two cases of N.A. Modi Vs. CIT 162 ITR 420(Bom) and CIT Vs. H.R. Aslot 115 ITR 255(Bom). 28.7 As against the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tribhuvandas G. Patel (supra), the Assessee preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tribhuvandas G. Patel Vs. CIT 236 ITR 515 (SC) framed three questions of law for cons…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2013-14 Tree Hill Estates Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Nadathur Palace, 3rd Floor, Plot No.23, of Income Tax, Jayanagar 3rd Stage, Circle 7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 017. Bengaluru. PAN: AACCT 5170F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 25.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This ap…

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)

…e contention of the assessee and made the addition as long term capital gain. 3.1.5 As stated, the AO has placed reliance upon the decision of the Pune Bench in Shevantibhai C Mehta vs ITO, 83 TTJ 542, Pune and on another decision in N.A. Mody vs. CIT (1986) 162 ITR 420 and has decided against the appellant company. The issue before me is about taxability of amount received by the assessee on retirement from the partnership firm. In reaching the decision on this issue, I find guidance from the ratio of following judgements as are being discussed here under In the recent judgement of PCIT vs. R.F. Nangrani HUF (…

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)

…e contention of the assessee and made the addition as long term capital gain. 3.1.5 As stated, the AO has placed reliance upon the decision of the Pune Bench in Shevantibhai C Mehta vs ITO, 83 TTJ 542, Pune and on another decision in N.A. Mody vs. CIT (1986) 162 ITR 420 and has decided against the appellant company. The issue before me is about taxability of amount received by the assessee on retirement from the partnership firm. In reaching the decision on this issue, I find guidance from the ratio of following judgements as are being discussed here under In the recent judgement of PCIT vs. R.F. Nangrani HUF (…

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

…avour of the continuing partners and the transaction cannot be regarded as amounting to any distribution of capital assets upon dissolution of a firm. The above decision was followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the other two cases of N.A. Modi Vs. CIT 162 ITR 420(Bom) and CIT Vs. H.R. Aslot 115 ITR 255(Bom). 25. As against the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tribhuvandas (supra) the Assessee preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thirubhuvandas G.Patel Vs. CIT 236 ITR 515 (SC) framed three questions of law for consideration…

Smt. Rama S. Gummadi vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)

ITTA/207/2005HC Telangana14 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

For Appellant: Dr. C.P. RamaswamyFor Respondent: Sri K. Raji Reddy
Section 47

…f the facts in Lingamallu Raghukumar (3 supra) reveals that the assessee was a partner and retired from the partnership firm after receiving the excess amount of Rs.46,500/-. This 1 (1983) 141 ITR 674 2 162 ITR 420 3 (2001) 247 ITR 801 CVNR, J & KVL, J I.T.T.A. No.207 of 2005 4 Court in Lingamallu Raghu Kumar (1 supra) held that there was no transfer of any assets defined in Clause (ii) of Section 47 of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, this Court had relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai4.…

Ramesh Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1798/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…gains are payable by an erstwhile partner on amounts received on retirement would not be applicable to the present case. The only submission on behalf of the revenue is that there was an earlier decision of this Court in the matter of N.A. Modi v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 420/24 Taxman 219 (Bom.) and it has not been considered in the decision rendered in the matter of Prashant S. Johsi (supra). 3. In the impugned order, the Tribunal does refer to the this Court in the matter of N.A. Modi (supra) and states that it follows the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v. Tribhuvandas G. Patel [1978] 115 ITR 95 (Bom.…

Ramesh Builders (India), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1797/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…gains are payable by an erstwhile partner on amounts received on retirement would not be applicable to the present case. The only submission on behalf of the revenue is that there was an earlier decision of this Court in the matter of N.A. Modi v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 420/24 Taxman 219 (Bom.) and it has not been considered in the decision rendered in the matter of Prashant S. Johsi (supra). 3. In the impugned order, the Tribunal does refer to the this Court in the matter of N.A. Modi (supra) and states that it follows the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v. Tribhuvandas G. Patel [1978] 115 ITR 95 (Bom.…

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)

…ITA 6362/Mum/2012 6 section 2(47) of the Act giving rise to capital gain exigible to tax. The AO relied upon following judgments :- 1. CIT v. Tribhuvandas G Patel (1978) 115 ITR 95(Bom.) 2. CIT v. H R Aslot (1978) 115 ITR 255(Bom.) 3. N A Mody v. CIT (1986) 162 ITR 420(Bom.) 4. Shevantibhai C. Mehta v. ITO, Pune-Tibunal. Thus, the goodwill amount of Rs. 75,53,858/- received by the assessee is treated as long term capital gain and charged to tax by the A.O., vide assessment order dated 29-12-2011 passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29-12-2011 passed by…