How many judgments cite Sudhakar M. Shetty v. ACIT?

14 judgments on BharatTax cite Sudhakar M. Shetty v. ACIT (130 ITD 197), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sudhakar M. Shetty v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 2(47), Section 45, Section 45(4), Section 9B.

Sudhakar M. Shetty v. ACIT

130 ITD 197Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#7650 most cited

What is Sudhakar M. Shetty v. ACIT authority for?

The taxability of an amount received by a partner upon retirement from a firm depends on the specific mode of retirement and how the accounts are settled, with admission of new partners generally not constituting a taxable transfer.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sudhakar M. Shetty v. ACIT · section 45 · capital gains · transfer of capital asset · retirement of partner · admission of new partner · taxability · partnership firm · settlement of accounts

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 2(47)Section 45 Section 45(4)Section 9B Section 45(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 45(1)section 2(47)transfer of capital asset section 45 transfer person india business interest

Judgments citing Sudhakar M. Shetty v. ACIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Manikandan, Chennai

ITA 2986/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2986/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. Manikandan, Vs. No.15/16/17, Vision Towers, 2Nd Floor, Yogam Garden, Valasarvakkam, Chennai - 600 087. Pan: Behpm 6583A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 16.02.2026 Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: आदेश / Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 26.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2 The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Of An Amount Of Rs.2,98,29,315/- Credited In Assessee'S Capital Account By M/S Crcl Llp, In Which Assessee Is A Partner, For Sacrificing / Relinquishing - 2 -:

Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

…to a transfer of capital assets and was not taxable. Thus, the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the ld. DR has no application to facts of the present case, as well as the order of the Mumbai Benches in the case of Sudhakar M. Shetty v. ACIT 130 ITD 197, being on similar facts, has no application. Moreover, the reliance placed on record by the ld. DR in the case of B. Raghurama Prabhu Estate v. JCIT 335 ITR 394 (Karnataka) as well as judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatsala Shenoy v. JCIT reported in - 16 -: ITA No.2986/Chny/2025 Manikandan AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 5299 [Civil App…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. Sathyabama Ramachandran, Alwarthirunagar

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghava Simhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasam, JCIT

Section 147Section 148

…to a transfer of capital assets and was not taxable. Thus, the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on by the ld. DR has no application to facts of the present case, as well as the order of the Mumbai Benches in the case of Sudhakar M. Shetty v. ACIT 130 ITD 197, being on similar facts, has no application. Moreover, the reliance placed on record by the ld. DR in the case of B. Raghurama Prabhu Estate v. JCIT 335 ITR 394 (Karnataka) as well as judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatsala Shenoy v. JCIT reported in AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 5299 [Civil Appeal No. 1234 of 2012 & Ors dated 18.10.20…

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

…Mujeeb Sikander, Mangalore Page 87 of 131 affected as laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of Tribhuvandas G. Patel (supra) and N.A. Modi's case (supra). Therefore, the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Sudhakar M. Shetty Vs. ACIT 130 ITD 197 (Mumbai) following the decision of the Pune Bench of the ITAT in the case of Shevantibhai C. Mehta v. ITO (2004) 83 TTJ 542(Pune) holding that question of taxability of an amount received by a partner on retirement from firm would depend upon mode in which retirement is affected, holds good. Therefore, taxability in such situation would depend on…

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

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

…pon mode in which retirement is effected as laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of Tribhuvandas G. Patel (supra) and N.A. Modi's case (supra). Therefore the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Sudhakar M. Shetty v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 130 ITD 197/9 taxmann.com 274 (Mum.) following the decision of the Pune Bench of the ITAT in the case of Shevantibhai C. Mehta v. ITO [2004] 4 SOT 94 holding that question of taxability of an amount received by a partner on retirement from firm would depend upon mode in which retirement is effected, holds good. Therefore taxability in such situation would de…

Synchem Chemicals (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 45

…ed to as ld. AO). 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Sudhakar Shetty (130 ITD 197(Mum) and thereby treating the amount of Rs.1,35,38,77,722/- as capital receipt not chargeable to tax u/s.45. 2. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting an amount of Rs.1,34,68,82,688/- as alleged long term capital gains on retirement from erstwhile from PLA-1 treating the same as not transfer u/s.2(47)…

Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 40, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 7189/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7189/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5234/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

…in the goodwill of the firm. Therefore, this amount was to be charged as capital gains in terms of decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in Samir Suryakant Sheth V/s ACIT (ITA No.2919 & 3092/Ahd/2002) and the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Shri Sudhakar Shetty (2011 130 ITD 197). Finally, the said amount was brought to tax as capital gains u/s 45(1). 3.1 Before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that the rights of the existing partner was reduced in the firm and the right was created in favor of the existing partner of the firm but the ownership of the property did not change even with the change in the constitution of…

Rahas Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2752/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Lupin Investments Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited (Successor To Income Tax, 10(1) Rahas Investments Private Aayakar Bhavan Limited M.K.Road, 159, Cst Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Kalina, Santacruz(E) Mumbai – 400 098 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr3202L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Lupin Investments Private Income Tax, 10(1) Limited (Successor To Rahas Aayakar Bhavan Investments Private Limited M.K.Road, 159, Cst Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Kalina, Santacruz(E) Mumbai – 400 098 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr3202L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hemen Chandariya Revenue By Shri Padmapani Bora Date Of Hearing 08/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2020

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 45

…nuing partners. To 4 M/s. Lupin Investments Private Limited (Successor to M/s. Rahas Investmetn Pvt. Ltd. support this proposition, the ld. AO placed reliance on the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sudhakar M Shetty vs. ACIT (2011) 130 ITD 197 (Bom). These two adjustments were made by the ld. AO while computing income under normal provisions of the Act. 4.1. The ld. AO while computing book profits u/s.115JB of the Act denied the claim of exemption u/s.10(2A) of the Act in the sum of Rs.10,48,51,708/- being the amount received from partnership firm and revaluation of asset. Proceeding…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. Abhay Sadashiv Gadgil, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1652/PUN/2017[ 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2019

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 45(1)

…apital receipt by placing reliance on certain decisions which are noted by the AO in his order. AO did not agree with the contentions of assessee. AO was of the view that the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Sudhakar M. Shetty Vs. ACIT reported in 130 ITD 197 (2011) was applicable to the facts of assessee. He accordingly held the amount of Rs.1,21,00,000/- received by the assessee to be transfer within the meaning of Sec.2(47) of the Act which attracts capital gains as per Sec.45 of the Act. He accordingly brought the said amount to tax on account of long term capital gains. Aggrieved by the order…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(1) Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Thakur Estate Development P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 4651/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm) Assessment Year-2012-13 Dcit, M/S Thakur Estate Central Circle-4(1), बनाम/ Development Pvt. Ltd. R. No.1916, 19Th Floor, G-1, Thakur House, Vs. Air India Building, Ahsok Nagar, Kandivali(E), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400101 Mumbai-400021 Pan No.Aaack2629J (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 22Section 23(4)Section 234CSection 234DSection 24DSection 271(1)(C)

…of capital gains in the hands of the firm, on retirement of partner, and, therefore, such decisions were not relevant to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the AO stated that the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Sudhakar Shetty -130 ITD 197 is applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. Considering the above facts, the AO held that on assessee's retirement from the partnership firm, there was a transfer of interest of the retiring partner over the assets of the partnership firm, and, therefore, long-term capital gains arising on such transfer is liable to be taxed in the hands o…

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

…pend on the upon mode in which retirement is effected as laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of Tribhuvandas G. Patel (supra) and N.A. Modi's case (supra). Therefore the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Sudhakar M.Shetty Vs. ACIT 130 ITD 197 (Mumbai) following the decision of the Pune Bench of the ITAT in the case of Shevantibhai C. Mehta v. ITO (2004) 83 TTJ 542(Pune) holding that question of taxability of an amount received by a partner on retirement from firm would depend upon mode in which retirement is effected, holds good. Therefore taxability in such situation would depend on…

ACIT 18(2), Mumbai vs. Keshav & Company, Mumbai

ITA 6276/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 45(4)

…surd result as the same income has already been taxed in the hands of partner and the same will lead to double taxation of the same income. In support of this contention, the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon. Mumbai ITAT in the case of Sudhakar Shetty 130 ITD 197. 7. The Ld. Assessing Officer after analyzing the provision of section 45(4) and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. A. N. Naik Associates, reported in [2004] 187 CTR 162, held that, firstly, the transaction carried out by the assessee firm has resulted into ‘transfer’ within the meaning and scope of secti…

Keshav and Company, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

ITA 5639/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 45(4)

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)

…(A) held that the relinquishment of rights on retirement from a partnership is not listed as one of the situations which will not be regarded as a transfer. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sudhakar M. Shetty, 130 ITD 197, which is similar to ITA 6362/Mum/2012 7 the assessee’s case wherein it was stated that a lump-sum consideration paid in consideration of the retiring partner assigning or relinquishing his share or right in the partnership and its assets in favour of the continuing partner will lead to levy of capital gain. To decide the case, the Tribunal has…