Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT

156 ITR 509Supreme Court of India1985#1406 most cited

What is Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT authority for?

A partner's contribution of a personal asset to a partnership firm does not amount to a "transfer" for capital gains purposes under the Income-tax Act, as the consideration (the partner's interest in the firm) is indeterminate, and the computational machinery for capital gains fails.

82

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

Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT · 156 ITR 509 · capital gains · transfer to partnership firm · partner's capital contribution · section 45 · section 2(47) transfer · indeterminate consideration · machinery failure principle · legislative amendment 45(4) · partnership asset contribution

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 45(4)Section 10(38)Section 112ASection 139(1)Section 2(22B)Section 2(47)Section 244A

Issues it is cited on

section 48section 45genuineness of the transactionreasonable causescrutiny assessmentsection 80transferprevious yearsection 11personcompanybusiness

Judgments citing Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 980/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 50(2)(ec)Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)Section 55(2)(as)Section 56(2)(ac)

…. No other method for determining FMV was then available under the statute. The computational edifice thus collapsed, leading to a classic machinery failure in the sense contemplated by B.C. Srinivasa Shetty and later reaffirmed in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT (156 ITR 509). 40. This position continued until the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 sought to remedy this gap by inserting clause (AA) in Explanation (a)(iii) to section 55(2)(ac), specifically covering the case of equity shares unlisted as on 31 January 2018 but 27 Ramesh Jaisinghani listed thereafter by IPO or OFS. For the sake of ready reference the said clause…

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)

…rly on dissolution of the partnership. Another device resorted to by an assessee was to convert an asset held independently as an asset of the firm in which the individual was a partner. The decision of the Supreme Court in Kartikeya V. Sarabhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 took a view that this would not amount to transfer and, therefore, fell outside the scope of the capital gain. The rationale being that the consideration for the transfer of the personal asset was indeterminate, being the right which arose or accrued to the partner during the subsistence of the partnership to get his share of profit from time to…

M/S RAJ KUMAR SINGH & CO.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 1288/LKW/1993[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2024AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

…f the partners over capital so contributed stands reduced to shared interest in the assets of the firm alongwith other partners of the firm. The above view finds support from the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Sidhurth Bhai vs. CIT reported in 156 ITR 509 wherein their Lordship of Supreme Court held as under: “Therefore, when a partner brings in his personal asset into the capital of the partnership firm as his contribution to its capital, he reduces his exclusive rights in the asset to shared rights in it with the other partners of the firm. While he does not lose his rights in the asset altoget…

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

…. While approving the decision of the Gujarat HC, the Apex court relied on its decision in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai v. relied on its decision in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai v. relied on its decision in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC). Relying on Mohanbhai Pamabhai, CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC). Relying on Mohanbhai Pamabhai, CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC). Relying on Mohanbhai Pamabhai, the Apex Court had in the case of CIT v. R.Lingamallu the Apex Court had in the case of CIT v. R.Lingamallu the Apex Court had in the case of CIT v. R.Lingamallu Raghukumar, (2001) 247 ITR…

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

…apital gain. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the assessee-assessee, has brought to our notice the decision of this court in CIT ( Addl.)v. Mohanbai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 where it has been held, following the decision in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC), that even where a partner retires and some amount is paid to him towards his share in the assets, it should be treated as falling under clause (ii) of section 47. Therefore, following this decision, this question has to be and is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 28.8 The decision in the case of Tribhuvandas G.Pa…

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

…apital gain. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the assessee-assessee, has brought to our notice the decision of this court in CIT ( Addl.)v. Mohanbai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 where it has been held, following the decision in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC), that even where a partner retires and some amount is paid to him towards his share in the assets, it should be treated as falling under clause (ii) of section 47. Therefore, following this decision, this question has to be and is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 28.8 The decision in the case of Tribhuvandas G.Pa…

SAI TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 652/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 45(3)Section 48

…ever, in the instant case there was neither any transfer of capital asset nor any sale consideration. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable. 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509 (S.C), he submitted that when partner brings in his asset into partnership as capital contribution, neither any consideration is received by the partner within the meaning of section 48 nor does any profit or gain accrues to him in commercial sense and, Page 7 of 18 ITA Nos 651 877 and 652 of 2017 Sai Teja Constructions Ltd Hyderabad therefore…

SAI TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 651/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 45(3)Section 48

…ever, in the instant case there was neither any transfer of capital asset nor any sale consideration. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable. 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509 (S.C), he submitted that when partner brings in his asset into partnership as capital contribution, neither any consideration is received by the partner within the meaning of section 48 nor does any profit or gain accrues to him in commercial sense and, Page 7 of 18 ITA Nos 651 877 and 652 of 2017 Sai Teja Constructions Ltd Hyderabad therefore…

SAI TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 877/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 45(3)Section 48

…ever, in the instant case there was neither any transfer of capital asset nor any sale consideration. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable. 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509 (S.C), he submitted that when partner brings in his asset into partnership as capital contribution, neither any consideration is received by the partner within the meaning of section 48 nor does any profit or gain accrues to him in commercial sense and, Page 7 of 18 ITA Nos 651 877 and 652 of 2017 Sai Teja Constructions Ltd Hyderabad therefore…

MAQTRO PICTURES,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 999/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 68

…ner to the firm or, in case of a debit balance, the sum, similarly, paid by the firm to him. That is, the definite sum payable to, or receivable from, a partner of a firm. This is as, as explained by the Hon’ble Apex court in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC),accretions thereto on account of profit earned, and deductions there-from for the loss sustained, by the firm, may have occurred over time, and indeed may in future. Why, the same may also include the value of the assets brought by a partner in the partnership, and which surely 3 Maqtro Pictures v. ITO cannot be said to be a loan or deposit…

ASHA NIMMAGADDA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-2(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 215/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: MS. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…t in the chair of the assessee to pass a judgment on the same. We agree with this contention of the assessee, provided the transactions are free from doubt. It shall be kept in mind that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC) held that if the transfer of the personal asset by the assessee to a partnership in which she is or becomes a partner is merely a device or ruse for converting the asset into money which would substantially remain available for his benefit without liability to income-tax on a capital gain, it will be open to the income-tax authorities to go…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE -2(1), RAIPUR vs. SHRI VAIBHAV JAIN, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 222/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 221/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Varun Jain 22-B, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aggpj1319R ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 222/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Vaibhav Jain 22-B, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Akbps4207Q ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Amit M Jain, Ar Revenue By :Shri Sanjay Sharma, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 45(3)

…justified in deleting the addition of Rs.18,61,74,000/- completely ignoring the provision of sec. 45(3) which was brought in by the Finance Act, 1987 to get over the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Saiddharthbhai Vs. CIT[1985]156 ITR 509/23 Taxman 14W? 5. The order of Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both in law and on facts. 6. Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee, viz. Shri Vaibhav Jain had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 31.03.010, declaring an income of Rs.17,91,000/-. It was observed by the AO…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), RAIPUR vs. SHRI VARUN JAIN , RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 221/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 221/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Varun Jain 22-B, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aggpj1319R ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 222/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Vaibhav Jain 22-B, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Akbps4207Q ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Amit M Jain, Ar Revenue By :Shri Sanjay Sharma, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 45(3)

…justified in deleting the addition of Rs.18,61,74,000/- completely ignoring the provision of sec. 45(3) which was brought in by the Finance Act, 1987 to get over the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Saiddharthbhai Vs. CIT[1985]156 ITR 509/23 Taxman 14W? 5. The order of Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both in law and on facts. 6. Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee, viz. Shri Vaibhav Jain had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 31.03.010, declaring an income of Rs.17,91,000/-. It was observed by the AO…

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

…osit for the purposes of accounting only and not for. the purposes of general law. He relied upon 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…

KALI BMH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1),, TRICHY

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

ITA 864/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.864/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kali Bmh Systems P. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 42/6, B2, Chennai Road, Vs. Income Tax, Melacauvery, Kumbakonam 612 002. Circle 2(1), Trichy. [Pan:Aadck0974H]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 47

…et between a firm and its partners, who have an undefined share in each of them, inasmuch as the exclusive interest of a partner gets converted into a shared interest, the same is not chargeable to capital gains u/s. 45 (viz. Sunil Siddarthabhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC) – on which reliance is placed). The withdrawal of ‘capital attributable to a fixed asset, intended to be retained as part of the capital structure of the firm, amounts to it’s monetization by the partners for their personal purposes, and is clearly impermissible, both from the stand-point of credit to the partner’s capital account (on revalu…

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

…Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, has brought to our notice the decision of this court in Addl.CIT v. Mohanbai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 where it has been held, following the decision in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT Page 16 of 20 [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC), that even where a partner retires and some amount is paid to him towards his share in the assets, it should be treated as falling under clause (ii) of section 47. Therefore, following this decision, this question has to be and is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." 26. The decision in the case of Tribhuvandas G. Pat…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

…therefore, it had to pay for utilisation of such infrastructure which was readily available with the assessee company, by relying on following case laws:- i) Rajabahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh V/s. CIT (77 ITR 53 (SC) ii) Sunil Siddharthbhai V/s. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC) iii) CIT V/s.Durgaprasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) iv) Juggilal Kamalapat V/s CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC) (v) Sumati Dayal V/s CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) And he treated the non compete fees as revenue receipt and added to the income of the assessee. Further, he observed that assessee has mainly relied upon the ratios in the case of Oberoi Hotels Co (…

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

…osit for the purposes of accounting only and not for. the purposes of general law. He relied upon 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), Vi…

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

…osit for the purposes of accounting only and not for. the purposes of general law. He relied upon 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 : 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 Taxma…

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

…n the case of CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai reported in 91 ITR 393 (Guj) b. Decision of aforesaid Gujarat High Court affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 165 ITR 166 (SC) c. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT reported in 156 ITR 509 (SC) d. Decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar reported in 247 ITR 801(SC) 10. We find that during the impugned assessment year, the assessee retired from the partnership firm and received amount standing to its credit in the books of the partnership firm. Much prior to the retirement i.e. on 01/04/2007, the…

Showing 1–20 of 82 · Page 1 of 5