“transfer of capital asset”

Deputy Commissioner, Mumbai vs. Gaurav Investments, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ............... Appellant V/S Gaurav Investments, 1St Floor, B & C Block, Tradelink, E-Wing, ……………… Respondent Kamala Mill Compounds, Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aadfg0064D

also since both the sections are similarly worded with the difference being that section 50C is applicable in case of transfer of capital asset being land or building or both and section 43CA is for the transfer of asset (other than capital asset) being land or building or both

DCIT 42 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Goyal, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

also since both the sections are similarly worded with the difference being that section 50C is applicable in case of transfer of capital asset being land or building or both and section 43CA is for the transfer of asset (other than capital asset) being land or building or both

Vishal Furnishing Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vishal Furnishing Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Income 211, Shiv Shakti Industrial Complex, Tax, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400011. Pan/Gir No. Aaacr2138K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakkani Respondent By : Shri Vivek Perampurna (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1) The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Was Passed In Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice & Contrary To The Scheme Of Assessment & Hence The Assessment Order Was A Nullity & Deserves To Be Quashed. 2) The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ao Disallowing Depreciation On Goodwill Of Rs 4,12,73,088/- (As Claimed In Accounts) Without Appreciating That Goodwill Had Arisen On Amalgamation & Was Eligible For Depreciation U/S 32 & Hence The Addition Of Rs 4,12,73,088/-May Be Deleted. Vishal Furnishing Limited

acquired from the amalgamating company but was as result of amalgamation and hence, there was no actual cost of goodwill incurred in the transfer of capital asset to the assessee company. The ld. AR relied extensively on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of M/s. Keva Fragrances

Nutrela Marketing P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Greenfield Hotels & Estates (P) Ltd reported in 389 ITR 68 (Bom). 4.4 The Ld.AR submitted that section 50C deals with transfer of capital assets being, land or building or both. He submitted that it does not deal with capital assets as defined u/s.2(14) of the Act. He submitted that

Vinay Tarachand Chawla, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

shares etc. As per clause (2) of Section 45 of the Act, it has been provided that the capital gain arising on transfer of capital asset shall be chargeable to tax. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs Jupiter Capital ... loan waiver to KMFL is unsustainable in law. For capital loss to be allowable under Section 45, there must be a 'transfer' of 'capital asset' as defined under Sections 2(14) and 2(47). The capital reduction involved mere extinguishment of shares without any transfer to another party, which doesn

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 9 to 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

condition precedent are (i) there should be a distribution of capital asset of a firm; (ii) such distribution is a result of any transfer of capital asset by firm in favour of partner; (iii) on account of transfer, there should be a profit or gain derived by the firm

Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to set-off under Section 74 in respect of capital gain arising on transfer of capital assets on which depreciation has been allowed in the first year itself and which is deemed as short term capital gain under Section