“slump sale”

Capital GainsSection 50BSection 50B409 judgments

The decision most relied on for slump sale is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on slump sale

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.

348 ITR 302 · 2012 · Supreme Court

540

citing judgments

Goodwill, whether arising from an amalgamation or a slump sale, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act. While the assessee must prove the existence and valuation of such goodwill, it is recognized as a depreciable asset.

Areva T&D India Ltd. v. DCIT

345 ITR 421 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Business contracts and commercial rights of similar nature qualify as intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) and are eligible for depreciation. The decision also affirms that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT

41 Taxmann.com 120 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

A non-compete fee paid as part of a business acquisition or transaction constitutes an intangible asset, eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

Ashwin Vanaspati Industries v. CIT

255 ITR 26 · 2002 · High Court

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on goodwill acquired through the slump sale of a business. When an assessee claims depreciation on the enhanced cost of an asset supported by a registered valuer's report, tax authorities must produce countervailing evidence, such as a departmental valuation report, to challenge it, rather than simply disregarding the expert opinion.

Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT

350 ITR 324 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

A deduction for interest expense on borrowed funds used for interest-free advances to group companies is permissible only if the assessee establishes these advances were from surplus funds. The decision further clarifies eligibility for depreciation on intangible assets like non-compete fees, software, goodwill, and commercial rights under section 32(1)(ii), often arising from a slump sale.

Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

65 Taxmann.com 288 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

When a business is purchased as a going concern, the consideration paid in excess of the value of its tangible assets is classified as goodwill, which is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation without needing a separate valuation.

CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co.

227 ITR 260 · 1997 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

In a slump sale, the slump purchase price cannot be apportioned among individual assets for claiming depreciation, as there is no indication of the price attributable to specific assets out of the total sale consideration.

Areva T & D India Ltd. v. DCIT

20 Taxmann.com 29 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Specified intangible assets like business claims, information, records, contracts, employees, and know-how acquired under a slump sale are considered 'business or commercial rights' eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii).

Judgments citing slump sale

ACIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai vs. Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2108/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT

Section 32Section 35D

No.2108, 2132/Mum/2018 & CO 110/Mum/2019; A.Y. 2014-15 does not exceed the written down value as so increased; and (C) in the case of a slump sale, decrease by the actual cost of the asset falling within that block as reduced- (a) by the amount of depreciation actually allowed

Sudhir Vrundavandas Valia, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Cir-20(1), Mumbai

ITA 1096/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80ISection 90

purpose even though the Appellant had claimed that the ownership of the windmill was transferred from EMCO to the Assessee by way of slump sale. Form 10CCB filed by the Appellant stated that the Assessment Year 2018-19 was the first year of claim of deduction by 7 the Appellant

The DCIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Fridgehouse Retail P. Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankaranarayanan, CA

Section 143(3)Section 68

other than those taken-over. It is not a case of a transfer covered u/s. 47(xiii). Whether the said transfer amounts to a slump sale, attracting s.50B, a matter arising in the case of the firm, does not concern us. Whether, therefore, all the partners of the firm became

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 769/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Mr. Mudit Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 43(1)

Appellant had acquired goodwill on no amalgamation, but the Appellant had acquired goodwill on no amalgamation, but the Appellant had acquired goodwill on slump sale as part of business acquisition from GSK and CTPL. slump sale as part of business acquisition from GSK and CTPL. slump sale as part ... demerger / succession of the b demerger / succession of the business, but the Appellant had usiness, but the Appellant had acquired goodwill on slump sale through payment of monetary acquired goodwill on slump sale through payment of monetary acquired goodwill on slump sale through payment of monetary consideration as part

M/S Texanlab Laboratories Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 1614/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Texanlab Laboratories Dcit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, Aayakar Vs. W-384, Ttc Industrial Area, Bhavan, New Marine Lines Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400701. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabct 4229 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule (Addl. CIT)

Section 194JSection 40

granting depreciation of Rs.89,89,924/ AO in not granting depreciation of Rs.89,89,924/- u/s 32 of the Act on assets acquired on slump sale on th 32 of the Act on assets acquired on slump sale on th 32 of the Act on assets acquired on slump sale ... ground that slump sale was violative of sec. 2 (42C) of ground that slump sale was violative of sec. 2 (42C) of ground that slump sale was violative of sec. 2 (42C) of the Act and similar such disallowance were made in the Act and similar such disallowance were made

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC 5(2) Central Range-5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Wellknown Business Ventures LLP, Mumbai

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

ITA 1949/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Agrawal/HiteshFor Respondent: Dr. Shyam Prasad (CIT-DR) (on 12.04.2023)/ Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 133A

shares received by way of gift, bonus issue, share split etc. or shares received upon amalgamation, demerger, conversion or slump sale etc. It is however to be ensured that the previous owner of the shares had not acquired them in terms of clauses (a) or (b) or (c), other than

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC 5(2) Central Range-5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Wellknown Business Ventures LLP, Mumbai

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

ITA 1948/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Agrawal/HiteshFor Respondent: Dr. Shyam Prasad (CIT-DR) (on 12.04.2023)/ Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 133A

Gbt India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD, Delhi

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

ITA 1763/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu S. Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT DR

Section 43BSection 92C

arising as a result of acquisition of Corporate Travel division of American Express India Pvt Ltd ("AEIPL") by the Appellant by way of a slump sale during FY 2014- 15. 15. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO failed ... agreement between American Express India Pvt Ltd (AEIPL) and the assessee, corporate travel business division of AEIPL was transferred to the assessee vide a slump sale on a going concern basis effective from 01.06.2014. In lieu of the same, the appellant had paid a consideration

The ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3854/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

however, that the amount of such reduction does not exceed the written down value as so increased; and (C) in the case of a slump sale, decrease by the actual cost of the asset falling within that block as reduced— (a) by the amount of depreciation actually allowed

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir - 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3517/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

Finance Bill, 1999 (refer pages 125 to 127 of the paper book) which clearly mentions that with a view to recognise demergers, slump sales and to rationalise the existing provisions of amalgamation, a number of amendments have been proposed on the basis of several broad principles. The first such principle

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Facilities Management Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2945/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrunal Parekh

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B(3)

seen that the assessee had incorrectly adopted the amount of networth of asset while computing Long Term Capital Gain of slump sale made during the year under consideration and this had resulted incorrect computation of LTCG and hence under assessment of Rs. 2,70,32,509/-". 3. "Whether ... facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of Capital Gains arising on slump sale of the food services business Rs. 3,26,25,6227- without appreciating that the PEVC (Profit Earning Capacity Value) was required to be considered

ACIT Central Circle-13, Delhi vs. Bsbk Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5005/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 50B

fold: (i) EPC business of the assessee company and then MBPL were transferred to BESPL on a going concern basis, by way of slump sale w.e.f 01.04.2014. (ii) Then MBPL and EIL stood amalgamated into the assessee company w.e.f 01.04.2015. (iii) BESPL was renamed to MBPL on scheme becoming effective ... after approval from the High Court. 6. This scheme was approved by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad vide order dated 19.11.2015. Separate slump sale agreement dated 24.03.2015 was also entered into by the assessee and BESPL in respect of the aforesaid Section 1 of the Scheme. Pursuant

ACIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi vs. Global Fairs & Media Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3328/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3328/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 बनाम Acit Global Fairs & Media Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Circle 10(1) 9-10, Express Building, New Delhi. Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaecg3877C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 47

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing depreciation on the Goodwill when the transaction of sale of slump sale to subsidiary company is not regarded as transfer within the meaning of section 47(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the Discount Cash ... goodwill was acceptable by an independent third party. 20. Interestingly, in its ground of appeal, the Revenue has challenged that transaction of sale of slump sale to subsidiary company is not regarded as transfer within the meaning of Section 47(iv) of the Act. But, we find that

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

Software Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 397 dealing with the issue relating to eligibility of the successor entity which had acquired the eligible undertaking on slump sale basis to claim deduction under section 10A, held as under: “11. The Tribunal in the present case has come to the conclusion that where ... view, a number of provisions have been conceived for the entire gamut of business reorganisations. ... 3. With a view to reorganise demergers, slump sales and to rationalise the existing provisions of amalgamation, a number of amendments have been proposed on the basis of the following broad principles: (a) demergers should

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

T vs. Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2614/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Tvs Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Acit -2(3)(1) B-106, 10Th Floor, B-Wing Mumbai Vs. Mittal Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400001

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sanghvi & Shri Ujjval GangwalFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Kashyap CIT DR

Section 3Section 48Section 50B

part of retail units and reorganizing its business structure the assessee has sold this unit too This falls under the provisions of SOB as slump sale. As per the provisions of slump sale the net assets value and the sale consideration have to taken into consideration for determining capital gains ... sold retail business units during the year. As discussed above as part of business reorganization the sale clearly falls under u/s 50B .As per slump sale provisions assessee has to compute gains by providing valuation report. As assessee has failed to furnish the same the sale value and book value

Tranztar Commercial Vehicle Applications Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6624/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40ASection 92BSection 92C

raised by the ld. counsel. It is an undisputed fact that the SDT for purchase of office space as inventory was by way of Slump Sale of a going concern w.e.f. 28th March, 2016. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny on 21.07.2017 and reference

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Vijayshree Fats & Oil Products Private Limited, Raipur

ITA 49/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Rpr/2018 Co No.02/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Vijayshree Fats & Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcv2584Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 50BSection 50C

been held that the possibility of identification of price attributable to individual items (plant, machinery and dead stock) which are sold as part of slump sale, may not entitle a transaction to be qualified as slump sale?" 3. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case ... erred in giving a finding that sale of property made by the assessee was a slump-sale without verifying the primary condition for slump-sale?" 4."Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in accepting the fresh evidence produced

Sekhri Brothers, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5508/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Sekhri Brothers Vs. Acit, Circle-49(1) B-57/4, New Delhi. Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan Aamfs1085R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148

agreement dated 31.12.2010 is Rs. 12,91,00,000/- justify why the same should not be taken as sale consideration in r/o slump sale of business.” 3.1 The reply of the assessee is contained in para 5.2 and 5.3 of the order of the Ld. AO which is reproduced hereunder ... during the year under assessment. 2 5.3 Further the assessee vide reply dated 16.03.2015 had submitted as under- Rs. 12.50 Crore sales consideration as slump sale as mentioned in the agreement includes Rs. 9 Lacs on account of rent received. This was agreed mutually 'Tween both the parties. M/s Tropical