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.

How many judgments cite Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT?

82 judgments on BharatTax cite Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT (156 ITR 509), spanning 2013 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 45(4), Section 10(38), Section 112A, Section 139(1), Section 2(22B).

Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT (156 ITR 509)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri. Vikram Reddy

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

ITA/291/2013HC Karnataka24 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 260Section 260A

…e rightly held that the assessee had failed to appreciate the advance received from Nestle was returned and as such, it was income of the assessee. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in SUNIL SIDDHARTHBHAI VS. CIT, 156 ITR 509 (SC), WORKMEN OF ASSOCIATED RUBBER INDSUTRY LTD. VS. ASSOCIATED RUBBER INDSUTRY LTD AND ANOTHER, 157 ITR 77 (SC) AND KILLICK NIXON LTD VS. DCIT, (2012) 81 CCH 0066 MUM HC. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that transfer of shares by the assessee in favour of the firm viz., BVRE during the previous year rel…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Hyderabad vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Shrilekha Financial Services Initially and Subsequebtly M/S Shrilekha Business Consultancy ), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1041/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy Ward – 4(5) Pvt. Ltd., (Pan No.Aaycs0021L) Hyderabad (Formerly M/S. Shrilekha Financial Services Initially & Subsequently M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy, Both Are With Pan:Aacfs9088A 3-6-478, Iv Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayath Nagar Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. Aacfs9088A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 45(3)Section 56

…of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act will automatically apply. 17.1. The ld. CIT DR also argued that apart from the facts, the ld. CIT(A) had also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs.CIT reported in 156 ITR 509 to delete the addition made u/s.56(2) (viia) of the Act. The ld. CIT DR argued that the said Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision was rendered in the context of applicability of Section 2(47) r.w.s.45 & 48 of the Act and not with Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and hence it is factually distinguishable. He also argued that the provisions of Section 45…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Hyderabad vs. Shrilekha Financial Services (Presently Known As M/S Shrilekha Business Consultancy), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1371/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy Ward – 4(5) Pvt. Ltd., (Pan No.Aaycs0021L) Hyderabad (Formerly M/S. Shrilekha Financial Services Initially & Subsequently M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy, Both Are With Pan:Aacfs9088A 3-6-478, Iv Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayath Nagar Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. Aacfs9088A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 45(3)Section 56

…of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act will automatically apply. 17.1. The ld. CIT DR also argued that apart from the facts, the ld. CIT(A) had also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs.CIT reported in 156 ITR 509 to delete the addition made u/s.56(2) (viia) of the Act. The ld. CIT DR argued that the said Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision was rendered in the context of applicability of Section 2(47) r.w.s.45 & 48 of the Act and not with Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and hence it is factually distinguishable. He also argued that the provisions of Section 45…

Network Construction Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2, Mumbai

ITA 2279/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ Ita No. 2279/Mum/2017 (ननर्ाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years 2012-13) M/S. Network Construction Acit, Circle – 2, Thane Company, 109-111, Goyal Shopping Centre, Opp. Railway बनाम/ Station, Borivali (W), Vs. Mumbai 400 092 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायीलेखा िं./Pan No. Aagpn1497A अपीलार्थीकीओर े/Appellant By : Shri Dr. K. Shivram, Ar प्रत्यर्थीकीओर े/Respondent By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Dr ुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2020 घोर्णाकीतारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. Shivram, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 45(3)Section 50C

…ven though a transfer but it is not a sale because there neither any receipt nor any accrual of any consideration. For this, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai Vs. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the following observations of Hon'ble Apex Court vide Para 17 as under: - “17. What is the profit or gain which can be said to accrue or arise to the assessee when he makes over his personal asset to the partnership firm as his contribution to its capital. The consideration, as we have observe…

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)

…t Years-2010-11 & 2012-13 by way of mutual adjustment of rights between them. The distribution, division, or allotment of assets of the erstwhile partners, it not done by the dissolved firm." 11. The Apex Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 /23 Taxman 14W at pages 518, 519, 520 and 522 held as under:- ''When a partner brings in his personal asset into a partnership firm as his contribution to its capital, an asset which originally was subject to the entire ownership of the partner becomes now subject to the rights of other partners in it. It is not an interest which can be evaluated…

Universal Medicare P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for

ITA 4418/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanuniversal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Capsulation Premises, Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Mumbai-400088. Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Pan: Aaacu0717B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 268/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Capsulation Premises, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room Mumbai-400088. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Pan: Aaacu0717B India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate With Shri Manish Shah Advocate Respondent By : Mrs. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Shah AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 254(1)Section 50B

…dition being fulfilled) and therefore, in this Assessment Year it was not possible to compute “full value of consideration”. 22. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Siddharthbhai [156 ITR 509 (SC)] and in CIT vs. Gorge Henderson & Co. Ltd. [66 ITR 622 (SC)] wherein it was held that absence of quantifiable consideration result in failure of the assessee for charging capital gain tax. Accordingly, if contention of AO accepted then following the aforesaid ratio of Hon’ble Apex Court, full value of consideration not being determinable,…

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

…decision of the Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai,[ 91 ITR 393 (Guj)] as confirmed by the Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [165 ITR 166 (SC)], the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sunil Siddharthbhai Vs. CIT [156 ITR 509 (SC)], as also the decision of the Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar [247 ITR 801 (SC)] would have to be examined. Since this has not been done at the level of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that it would be a better option that the Tribunal at first instance undertakes such exercise. Only on this around, the impugned…

The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (4), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Mahendrabhai D. Zalavadia, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 610/RJT/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 I.T.O., Shri Mahendrabhai D. Zalavadia, Vs. Ward-1(1)(4), 303, Ayodhya Apartment, Rajkot. University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aabpz6007F

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Sr.DR

Section 45(2)Section 45(3)Section 48Section 80I

…through any conversion is valid , sound and judicious as the capital assets must be considered under the phrase " conversion or treatment". 8.2 The Ld.D.R also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985)156 ITR 509 SC was dealing with the situation where an individual makes over his capital asset to a partnership as a contribution towards capital and the asset was valued for the purpose at the market value, and in that event it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there was asset within the meaning of section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.3 Even,…

Mdlr Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8215/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…al against the judgment of the Gujarat 14. High Court was dismissed by a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 . The Supreme Court relied upon its judgment in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509. The Supreme Court reiterated the same principle by relying upon the judgment in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa AIR 1966 SC 1300. The Supreme Court held that what is envisaged on the retirement of a partner is merely his right to realise his interest and to receive its value. What is realised is the interest which the partner enjoys i…

Mdlr Builders P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8214/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…al against the judgment of the Gujarat 14. High Court was dismissed by a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 . The Supreme Court relied upon its judgment in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509. The Supreme Court reiterated the same principle by relying upon the judgment in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa AIR 1966 SC 1300. The Supreme Court held that what is envisaged on the retirement of a partner is merely his right to realise his interest and to receive its value. What is realised is the interest which the partner enjoys i…

Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2250/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Ltd., Sanjibi Sarani, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 7Th Floor, Chowringhee Durgapur-713210 [Pan No.Aabct 4321 K] Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shrishankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 05.09.2018 Passed In Case No.18161/Cit(A)-1/Kol./Cir.-1(2)/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Does Not Press For First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenging Liquidated Damage Disallowance Of ₹85,099/- Made In Both The Lower Proceedings Keeping In Mind Smallness Of The Amount. 3. This First Substantive Ground Is Rejected As Not Pressed. 4. Next Comes The Estimated Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Site Expense Amounting To ₹4,74,241/- In Both The Lower Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Follows:-

Section 143(3)

…547 (All), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that where there is a finding given by the Income-tax authorities that creditworthiness of depositors was not proved, the amount could be assessed as income of the assessee. In Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is the right of the Income-tax authorities to consider genuineness of the transactions and to penetrate the veil and ascertain the truth. It is within their power to consider whether a particular transaction was to evade tax. In K. Ramasamy v. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 358 (Mad), it was held that veil can be…

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

…therwise is required for doing so. Such introduction of capital asset as capital contribution by a partner up to 1-4- 1988 did not result in incidence of capital gain. It was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Sidharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under the Income-tax Act, 1961, where a partner of a firm makes over capital assets which are held by him to a firm as his contribution towards capital, there is a transfer of a capital asset within the terms of section 45 of the Act, because an exclusive interest of the partner in personal assets is reduced,…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lal Baba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

…547 (All), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that where there is a finding given by the Income-tax authorities that creditworthiness of depositors was not proved, the amount could be assessed as income of the assessee. In Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is the right of the Income-tax authorities to consider genuineness of the transactions and to penetrate the veil and ascertain the truth. It is within their power to consider whether. a particular transaction was to evade tax. In K. Ramasamy v. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 358 (Mad), it was held that veil can be…

Lal Baba Seamless Tubes (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

…547 (All), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that where there is a finding given by the Income-tax authorities that creditworthiness of depositors was not proved, the amount could be assessed as income of the assessee. In Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is the right of the Income-tax authorities to consider genuineness of the transactions and to penetrate the veil and ascertain the truth. It is within their power to consider whether. a particular transaction was to evade tax. In K. Ramasamy v. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 358 (Mad), it was held that veil can be…

ITO (Exemptions), Jamshedpur vs. Jyoti Punj Educational and Welfare Society, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 144/RAN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR

Section 12ASection 147

…duational & W.F Society capital asset includes sale, exchange, relinquishment of the asset or the extinguishment of any right therein or compulsory acquisition thereof under any law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Sidharth Bhai vs. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC) has held that transfer u/s. 2(47) is merely inclusive and not exhaustive other kinds of transfer. Section 2(47) (v) states that transfer includes giving possession of immovable property under part performance of a contract. Therefore, any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained i…