Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. ITO

264 ITR 193High Court2003#5582 most cited
21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 14ASection 195

Issues it is cited on

going concernsection 50transfersection 143(3)total incomebusiness

Judgments citing Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. ITO

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2618/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2330/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 v. M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., The ACIT, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. [PAN: AAACA 4651 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2618/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 v. The ACIT, M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.…

ITO, LOWER PAREL vs. SOHIT SHRAVANKUMAR SADH, LOWER PAREL

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

ITA 3180/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Income Tax Officer Sohit Shravankumar Sadh Room No. 213, 3Rd Floor, A-2, Unit No. 79, Shah & Amp, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Nahar Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 012 S J Road, Mumbai-400 013

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM Income Tax Officer Sohit Shravankumar Sadh Room No. 213, 3rd Floor, A-2, Unit No. 79, Shah & AMP, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Nahar Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 012 S J Road, Mumbai-400 013 PAN/GIR No. AAGPS 1094 N (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Meshram Date of Hearing : 14.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue, challenging the order of the l…

NELCO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3825/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 15(2)(1) Nelco Limited Room No.357, 2Nd Floor, El-6, Electronic Zone, Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710 Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1983C

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50B

…o transfer but arising as liabilities shared by the buyer and seller. Thus it is not the expenditure on transfer but liabilities taken on its own by the assessee. 036. Assessee relied on decision of Honourable Bombay high court in Premier Automobiles limited 264 ITR 193 referring to page no 233 was that whether the sale of kalian business was a slump sale or not. The court held yes. In this case it is not the issue as everyone agrees that it is slump sale. 037. In view of above facts we do not find any infirmity in the orders of lower authorities in not considering the Rs Nelco Ltd; A.Y. 2011-12; 12069875/- as…

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 23/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

Section 144ASection 28

…apital gains‘. Per contra, the and CO No.11/PUN/2022 case of the assessee is that the entire amount was received towards transfer of shares alone. The ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in Premier Automobile Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. (2003) 264 ITR 193 (Bom) to contend that when the business is transferred, chargeability arises in terms of section 50B. It is no doubt true that both the Hon‘ble High Courts have held as has been argued. 11. The AO/ld. CIT(A) have fully/partly taken shelter of section 28(ii)(a)/(va) to canvass their respective points of view. It thus becomes essential to mull over…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 182/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

Section 144ASection 28

…apital gains‘. Per contra, the and CO No.11/PUN/2022 case of the assessee is that the entire amount was received towards transfer of shares alone. The ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in Premier Automobile Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. (2003) 264 ITR 193 (Bom) to contend that when the business is transferred, chargeability arises in terms of section 50B. It is no doubt true that both the Hon‘ble High Courts have held as has been argued. 11. The AO/ld. CIT(A) have fully/partly taken shelter of section 28(ii)(a)/(va) to canvass their respective points of view. It thus becomes essential to mull over…

ACC LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT - LTU, MUMBAI

ITA 417/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. ACC Limited v. Addl. CIT -Range 1(1) (Formerly known as The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. ACC Limited v. Asst. CIT-LTU (Formerly known as The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT – LTU v. M/s. ACC Limited 28th Floor, Centre-…

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5692/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. ACC Limited v. Addl. CIT -Range 1(1) (Formerly known as The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. ACC Limited v. Asst. CIT-LTU (Formerly known as The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT – LTU v. M/s. ACC Limited 28th Floor, Centre-…

ACC LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5655/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. ACC Limited v. Addl. CIT -Range 1(1) (Formerly known as The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. ACC Limited v. Asst. CIT-LTU (Formerly known as The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT – LTU v. M/s. ACC Limited 28th Floor, Centre-…

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

ITA 82/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Indore17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 271ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 91D(1)Section 92BSection 92D(1)

…ation of price to any particular asset, the transaction is of the capital nature covered by Section 50B of the Act, liable for capital gain :- a) CIT vs. Accelerated Freeze Drying Co. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 440 (Kerala) b) Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. ITO [2003] 264 ITR 193 (Bom.) " It may please be appreciated that the slump sale transaction was therefore not a Specified Domestic Transaction as defined in section 92BA of the Act and it was not required to be reported in Form 3CEB. III) Initiation of penal proceedings, penalty notice and penalty order : It is submitted that the Assessing Officer did not clearly and…

MORARJEE REALITIES LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS PENINSULA LAND LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T. CIRCLE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2135/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushilkumar Poddar
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45

…as violation of the conditions stipulated in section 2(42C) of the Act. In the case of Polychem Ltd. (supra), in a somewhat similar situation, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, following its earlier decision in the case of Premier Automobile Ltd. vs. ITO [2003] 264 ITR 193 held the transaction to be in the nature of a slump sale. The relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced hereunder: “7. Reading the agreement as it stands, it is evident that the subject matter of contract between the assessee and the purchaser was the transfer of the business of the undertaking of the IMFL unit as a going concern. The…

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE PCIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 676/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

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

…bile Ltd. (Supra), which has been set aside by the Hon’ble High Court and the claim of the assessee in that case wherein it has claimed to have sold its Kurla Unit on slump sale was accepted by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. ITO 264 ITR 193 (Bom) and, therefore, the order relied by the Ld. CIT is not a good law. 33. The Ld. CIT was of the view that certain liabilities and obligations of the transferor (assessee) has not been transferred and refers to para 2.5 of BTA. We do not subscribe to the CIT’s view. A perusal of clause 2.5 reveals that liabilities and obligations which are re…

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. EQUINOX SOLUTION PVT. LTD

C.A. No.-004399-004399 - 2007Supreme Court18 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

Section 260Section 48Section 50

…Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4399 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) This appeal is filed by the Revenue (Income Tax Department) against the order dated 29.07.2003 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in I.T.A. No. 59 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on the ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law under Section 260-A of the Income Tax…

CYFAST ENTERPRISES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1878/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

Section 50B

…ilities’ can be more than `the aggregate value of assets of the undertaking’ within the meaning of section 50B. 18. The learned AR pressed into service the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. ITO & Anr. [(2003)264 ITR 193(Bom.)]. That assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cars. It entered into a joint venture agreement with a foreign company to establish a joint venture company. The assessee sold one of its business undertakings as a whole to the joint venture company for a lump sum consideration. The Assessing Officer took it as…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3, MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 4442/MUM/2010[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: S/Shri Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No./4442/Mum/2010 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit - Range 2(2) Room No. 577, 5Th Floor L&T House, N.M. Marg Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aaacl0140P Mumbai-400020 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No./4599/Mum/2013 ,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 वष" Dcit - Range 2(2) M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Mumbai-400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Mukund Chate Assessee By: Shri J.D. Mistry सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.26.03.20130Of The Cit(A)-5,Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Construction, Manufacturing Of Heavy Machinery & Cement, Etc., Filed It Return Of Income On,27.11.1998,Declaring Income Of Rs.37.20 Crores.The Ao Complet -Ed The Assessment,On 28.02.2001, Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,09,15,37,490/-.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Mukund Chate
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(9)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण," ए” खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Shri Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA No./4442/Mum/2010 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. DCIT - Range 2(2) Room No. 577, 5th Floor L&T House, N.M. Marg Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road PAN: AAACL014…

D.C.I.T CIR - 7,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. BHAGIRATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 79/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 50BSection 54B

…dividual value has been assigned to the assets than it is a case of slump sale. Similarly view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PNB Finance (20080 307 ITR 75 and Bombay High Court in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 264 ITR 193 and CIT v. Polychem (2012) 343 ITR 115. (iv) In the case of the appellant the value has been assigned to the individual assets in the memorandum of sale dated 11.08.2008 hence the sale transaction between the appellant and Prithvi Tea Company P Ltd cannot be termed as slump sale and accordingly this ground of appeal is decided in the favour of th…

M/S. THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-29, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 7524/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7524/Mum/2007 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) The Supreme Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Cc-29, 612, Raheja Chambers, 213, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 1344 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Alok Johri सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2004-2005. 2. First Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Taxing Of Capital Gains Amounting To Rs.10,30,06,590/- U/S.50B R.W.S.2(42C) Arising On The Transfer Of The Bopp Films Undertaking To Xpro India Ltd. (Xil). 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. This Ground Relates To Taxation Of Capital Gains Amounting To Rs.10,30,06,590/- U/S.50B Read With Section 2(42C) Of The I.T. Act. The Facts In Brief Relating To This Addition Are That During The Previous Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Entered Into A Business Transfer Agreement (Bta) With Xpro India Ltd (Xil) For Sale Of Its Bopp Films Undertaking At Pithampur, Madhya Pradesh As A Going-Concern For A Total

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri
Section 2Section 50B

…operties rights etc. The services of all the employees 6 of erstwhile BOPP undertaking have also been transferred to the buyer. The AO has rightly applied the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Premier Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 264 ITR 193 to the facts of the case for determining whether the impugned sale is slum sale or not. As discussed in para 3.8 of the assessment order, the facts of the present case fully satisfies the tests laid down by the jurisdictional high court for determining whether a transaction is a slum sale or not. As regards the objection of the appellant that the…

M/S HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 5,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 330/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50BSection 5O

…in the negative. As stated before, in view of this answer, it is not necessary to answer questions Nos. 2 and 4.” 15. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. ITO (2003) 264 ITR 193 (Bom), wherein Hon’ble 12 Hindustan Engg. & Ind. Ltd., AY 2009-10 High Court considered similar issue, wherein the assessee’s sold its Kalyan Undertaking engaged in manufacturing of car for lump sum consideration. Hon’ble High court on close scrutiny of documents connected with the transfer and conduct of the parties found that the intention o…

AKTIEBOLAGET ELECTROLUX SWEDEN,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG I, MUMBAI

ITA 7628/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Parthasarathy Choudhuryअपील सं/.Ita No.7628/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2006-07 अपील सं/.Ita No.8695/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 Aktiebolaget Electrolux Sweden Income Tax Officer-1(3) C/O. Srbc & Associates14Th Floor, Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor Vs The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Murbad Road, Kalyan Dadar (W),Mumbai-400 028. Mumbai. Pan: Aadca 9239 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri K. Krishna Murty सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02-09-2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2015 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dt. 06/09/2012 & 27/09/2009 Of Drp-I, Mumbai, The Assessee, Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Above Mentioned Two Orders Respectively:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri K. Krishna Murty
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234bSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…r the year under appeal after the assessment for next AY.was completed,that he was aware of all the above facts,that even then he ignored the facts and made addition for the AY.under consideration.The AR placed Reliance on the decisions of Premier Automobiles(264 ITR 193),D.S.Bist & Sons(149 ITR 276), Braithwaite & Co.(India) Ltd.(111 ITR 542),Salitho Ores Ltd.(344 ITR161),Oberoi Hotels(P)Ltd.(334ITR293). 2.4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The basic issues to be decided are whether the transaction entered in to by the assessee in transferring the shares to VND for USD 9 an…

M/S. MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT SPL. RG. - 20, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4597/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4597/Mum/2005 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000)

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija
Section 35D

…essment year 1997- 98 and the Tribunal has set aside this issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in the light of the Tribunal order. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions : a) Premier Automobiles Ltd V/s ITO (264 ITR 193)(Bom); b) M/s Artex Manufacturing Company reported in 227 ITR 260 (SC) ; c) CIT V/s Electric Control Gear Mfg.Co. 227 ITR 278 (SC); and d) CIT V/s Asea Brown Boveri Ltd 11 TTJ 502 (Mum). and submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in the light of the above precedents. 30. The ld. DR did not object to the…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

ITA/417/2007HC Delhi24 Dec 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 50Section 50(2)

…rvice various judgments which are taken note of the Tribunal in this behalf. Particular reference was made to the following judgments: (1) R.C. Cooper Vs. Union of India [AIR 1970 SC 564]; (2) Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [264 ITR 193 (Bom)]; (3) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Max India Ltd. [319 ITR 68 (P & H)] (4) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narkeshwari Prakashan Ltd. [196 ITR 438 (Bom.)] 14. We have given our due consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for the parties on either side. Before we embark on the discussion on the issue that qua…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. ITO (264 ITR 193) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax