Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT

156 ITR 509Supreme Court of India1985#1397 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 366,314 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

M/S Apco Concrete Blocks & Allied Products, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1125/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Sarangan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 49(1)(iii)

…by the Assessee before the ITAT seeking to plead that the case of the Assessee will be a case of succession falling within section 49(1)(iii)(a) of the Act; (ii) the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT reported in (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC) is directly applicable to the facts of the issue under consideration whereby it was held that when an individual brings his individual property as capital contribution of the firm there is no transfer resulting in chargeable capital gain; (iii) the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the immovable property having been acquired in the year 19…

The Commr of Income Tax vs. M/S Dynamic Enterprise

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/1414/2006HC Karnataka16 Sept 2013

Bench: This Bench.

Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45(4)

…The distribution, division, or allotment of assets of the erstwhile partners, it not done by the dissolved firm.” 20. The Apex Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad reported in (1985) Vol. 156 ITR 509 (SC) 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…