Tribhuvandas G. Patel v. CIT

236 ITR 515Supreme Court of India1999#7358 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Tribhuvandas G. Patel v. CIT

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

…TR 255(Bom). 28.7 As against the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tribhuvandas G. Patel (supra), the Assessee preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tribhuvandas G. Patel Vs. CIT 236 ITR 515 (SC) framed three questions of law for consideration and the following two questions (Question No.2 & 3), which are relevant for the present case were decided as follows: “2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 50,000 received by the assessee as his share of the value of the goodwill or any part thereof was…

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

…TR 255(Bom). 28.7 As against the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tribhuvandas G. Patel (supra), the Assessee preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tribhuvandas G. Patel Vs. CIT 236 ITR 515 (SC) framed three questions of law for consideration and the following two questions (Question No.2 & 3), which are relevant for the present case were decided as follows: “2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 50,000 received by the assessee as his share of the value of the goodwill or any part thereof was…

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

…ng partner as part of reconstitution is not liable to tax:- (i) Mohanbhai Pamabhai (1973) 91 ITR 393 (Guj) (ii) CIT v. Bankey Lal Vaidya (1971) 79 ITR 594 (SC) (iii) Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 49 (SC) (iv) Tribhuvandas G. Patel v. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 515 (SC) (v) CIT v. Karnataka Agro Chemicals (2014) 49 taxmann.com 324 (Kar) Page 6 of 20 (vi) Savitri Kadur v. DCIT (2019) 106 taxmann.com 314 (Bang. Trib.) (vii) New Kamlesh Jewellers v. ITO (2011) 9 taxmann.com 204 (Mum) 14. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee retired from the partnership firm and relinquished all its rights as partner. The as…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM M/s. Lupin Investments Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited Income Tax, 10(1), Mumbai (earlier known as Rahas Mercantile Pvt Ltd.,) (earlier known as Synchem Investments Private Limited) 159, C.S.T. Road Kalina, Santacruz (East) Mumbai- 400098 PAN/GIR No.AAECS5576Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Lupin Investments Private Income Tax, 10(1), Limited Mumbai (earlier known as Rahas Mercantile Pvt Ltd.,) (earlier known as Synchem Investments Private Limited) 159, C.S.T. Road…

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)

…47) inasmuch as the assessee had assigned, released and relinquished his share in the partnership and its assets in favour of the continuing partners. This part of the judgment was reversed in appeal by the Supreme Court in Tribhuvandas G. Patel v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 515. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Siddharthbhai's case (supra), the Supreme Court held that even when 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, the question was answered in favour of the M/s Anik Industries Ltd.…

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

…hat capital gains should not be levied on any amount paid to the partners for their net partnership assets and goodwill. We find reliance was also placed on the earlier decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tribhuvandas G. Patel vs. CIT reported in 236 ITR 515 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court over ruled the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the same case reported in 115 ITR 95(Bom). 11.1. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT reported in 156 ITR 509(SC) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case was considering the question of taxability of transfer…

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

…is no liability under the head “capital gain” in the hands of the retiring partner u/s. 45 of the Act :- 1) CIT Vs. Dewas Cine Corpn 68 ITR 240 2) CIT Vs. Bankey Lal Vaidya 79 ITR 594 3) CIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 165 ITR166 4) Tribhuvan G. Patel Vs. CIT 236 ITR 515 5) Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bom) 6) Chalasani Venkatsara Rao Vs. ITO 349 ITR 423 (A) 7) CIT Vs. L. Raghu Kumar 141 ITR 674 (AP) 8) CIT Vs. P. H. Patel 171 ITR 128 (AP) 9) CIT Vs. G. Seshagiri Rao 213 ITR 304 (AP) 10) Bankey Lal Vaidya Vs. CIT 55 ITR 400 (All) 11) CIT Vs. Kunamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544 (Ker) 16. Referring…

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

…is no liability under the head “capital gain” in the hands of the retiring partner u/s. 45 of the Act :- 1) CIT Vs. Dewas Cine Corpn 68 ITR 240 2) CIT Vs. Bankey Lal Vaidya 79 ITR 594 3) CIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 165 ITR166 4) Tribhuvan G. Patel Vs. CIT 236 ITR 515 5) Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bom) 6) Chalasani Venkatsara Rao Vs. ITO 349 ITR 423 (A) 7) CIT Vs. L. Raghu Kumar 141 ITR 674 (AP) 8) CIT Vs. P. H. Patel 171 ITR 128 (AP) 9) CIT Vs. G. Seshagiri Rao 213 ITR 304 (AP) 10) Bankey Lal Vaidya Vs. CIT 55 ITR 400 (All) 11) CIT Vs. Kunamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544 (Ker) 16. Referring…

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)

…kar M. Shetty. However, in doing so the Hon’ble ITAT had followed ratio of Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgement in case of Tribhuvandas G. Patel vs CIT 155 ITR. However, judgement in this case was reversed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as per the order reported in 236 ITR 515. Therefore, the judgement in CO No.311/Mum/2017 M/s Thakur Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. case of Sudhakar Shetty is no more a good precedent. On the contrary various judgements cited herein above are quite recent and from higher judicial authority. 16. In view of the above facts and legal position, I am of the view that no addition is warranted…

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

…slot 115 ITR 255(Bom). 25. As against the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tribhuvandas (supra) the Assessee preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thirubhuvandas G.Patel Vs. CIT 236 ITR 515 (SC) framed three questions of law for consideration and the following two questions (Question No.2 & 3) which are relevant for the present case were decided as follows: “2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 50,000 received by the assessee as his share of the value of the goodwill or any part thereof was…

RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1798/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…considered either as "disposition" or "conveyance" or "assignment" or "settlement" or "delivery" or "payment" or "alienation". It is no doubt true that on behalf of the assessee, their learned counsel has placed reliance in Tribhuvandas G. Patel v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 515 (SC). Firstly, in that case, the matter pertains to an assessment before the Amendment Act came into force in 1988. The issue was in respect of the retirement of a partner from a partnership. The real issue in that case was whether a partner who has retired and had received his share of the assets would be liable to be taxed under section 47. 17.…

RAMESH BUILDERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1797/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…considered either as "disposition" or "conveyance" or "assignment" or "settlement" or "delivery" or "payment" or "alienation". It is no doubt true that on behalf of the assessee, their learned counsel has placed reliance in Tribhuvandas G. Patel v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 515 (SC). Firstly, in that case, the matter pertains to an assessment before the Amendment Act came into force in 1988. The issue was in respect of the retirement of a partner from a partnership. The real issue in that case was whether a partner who has retired and had received his share of the assets would be liable to be taxed under section 47. 17.…

ACIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI vs. DINESH PARSHURAM AMIN, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5427/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal
Section 2(47)

…given an undertaking to file a return for a year other than the year under appeal before ITAT. The Supreme Court disapproved enforcing such an undertaking. The case of Tribhuvandas G Patel is no longer good law because the same was reversed by SC reported in 236 ITR 515. The facts of HR Aslot and NA Mody's case are similar to Tribhuvandas G Paters case, therefore, the same also impliedly overruled by Hon'ble SC. Further, CIT v A N Naik 265 ITR 346, word "Otherwise" in section 45(4) covers not only the cases of dissolution but also Associates cases of subsisting partners of a partnership transferring assets in fa…

ACIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI vs. PARASHURAM MAGANLAL AMIN, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5426/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal
Section 2(47)

…given an undertaking to file a return for a year other than the year under appeal before ITAT. The Supreme Court disapproved enforcing such an undertaking. The case of Tribhuvandas G Patel is no longer good law because the same was reversed by SC reported in 236 ITR 515. The facts of HR Aslot and NA Mody's case are similar to Tribhuvandas G Paters case, therefore, the same also impliedly overruled by Hon'ble SC. Further, CIT v A N Naik 265 ITR 346, word "Otherwise" in section 45(4) covers not only the cases of dissolution but also Associates cases of subsisting partners of a partnership transferring assets in fa…

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)

…r of N.A. Modi (supra) and states that it follows the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v. Tribhuvandas G. Patel [1978] 115 ITR 95 ITA 6362/Mum/2012 10 (Bom.) and the same has been reversed by the Apex Court in Tribhuvandas G. Patel v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 515. This Court in the matter of Prashant S. Joshi (supra) has also referred to the decision of Tribuvandas G. Patel (supra) rendered by this Court and its reversal by the Apex Court. Moreover, the decision of this Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi (supra) placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. R. Lingamallu…

Tribhuvandas G. Patel v. CIT (236 ITR 515) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax