“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

M/S Hemavathy Power & Light Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2718/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

ground that :- i. Valuation report which is the basis for accounting goodwill is not produced; ii. The assets were acquired in a slump sale of a sick industry which would not have had any goodwill; & iii. The assessee was not able to prove that it has paid the amount

M/S Hemavathy Power & Light Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2717/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Gea Process Engineering (India) P.Ltd, Gujrat vs. ITO, Mumbai

ITA 4338/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, M/S. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 Pan: Aaacl0566H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

tangible assets was rightly classified as goodwill. 20. In the facts of the present case, the ITAT has rejected the view that the slump sale agreement was a colourable device. Once having held so, the agreement between the parties must be accepted in its totality. The Agreement itself does ... provide for splitting up of the intangibles into separate components. Indisputably, the transaction in question is a slump sale which does not contemplate separate values to be ascribed to various assets (tangible and intangible) that constitute the business undertaking, which is sold and purchased. The Agreement itself indicates that slump

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gea Process Engineering ()I) P.Ltd, Gujrat

ITA 4155/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S I & B Seeds Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3415/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, D.R

Section 43(1)

assessee company. The assessee informed that the business of the said concern was taken over by it during the year under consideration in a slump sale. The assessee also informed that it had paid an amount of Rs.74,14,150/- to M/s. Sasya Gentech Private Limited, a company in which ... shareholder. This M/s. I&B Seeds Private Limited, Bangalore Page 3 of 26 company was also taken over by the assessee company in a slump sale agreement. As regards balance amount of Rs.19,60,780/- the same was stated. to be value of intangible assets as recorded in the books

DCIT 3(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mukund Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground no 3 is allowed

ITA 1794/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Raj Mehta(ACA), A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 14A

under normal provisions as per scheme of arrangement and amalgamation wherein assessee has sold its Alloy Steels Rolling and Finishing Business on slump sale basis to Mukand Vijaynagar Steels Ltd. in a scheme arrangement and amalgamation and computed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). Thereafter, assessee again filed revised return

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

recorded by the Applicant pursuant to the acquisition of the 'Shared Services Business' of TE Connectivity Global Shared Services Pvt Ltd ("TECGSS"), on a slump sale basis on 30.6 2015. It therefore represents a part of the consideration actually paid by the Appellant for the said acquisition (i.e., the excess ... Shared Services India Private Limited ('TECGSS')] that supported the business operations (excluding Broadband Network Solutions segment) of TB Group. The business was, purchased on slump sale basis for an amount or INR 68.55 crores and according to the assessee, the goodwill has arisen out of such purchase consideration paid. Amortization

Dy. CIT Cir 6 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Blue Foods Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6543/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6543/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cr. 6(1)(2), M/S Blue Foods Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 8, Marol Co-Op. बिधम/ Industrial Estate, Near Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marol Bhavan, Marol, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri-East, Maharashtra-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcb4617L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Samir Shah, Ld. Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri C. T. Mathews, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.03.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 02.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue As Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Mumbai In Short Referred As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’ Dated 11.06.2019 Pertaining To Ay 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Shri Samir Shah, Ld. AR byFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews, Ld. DR by

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

interest on ICD of Rs.2,18,43,580/- on behalf of Blue Foods Pvt. Ltd. which was treated as a consideration for slump sale in the books of account of M/s. PAN India and since the assessee has recognized this transaction in A.Y. 2011- 12, the amount of Rs.5

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

pertains to reduction in depreciation of Rs.8,27,76,558/- arising on account of AO’s action to disregard transfer of Bangalore undertaking as ‘slump sale’ by the AO in AY 1998-99. 46. Upon hearing the parties we find that this additional ground is also covered by the earlier ... decision of the tribunal in AY 1998-99 has granted relief to the assessee by treating the transfer of Bangalore undertaking as a 'slump sale'. Hence, the consequential reduction in Depreciation by the Department in all subsequent years needs to be eliminated. We are therefore directing the AO accept

Tmf Holding Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai

ITA 1628/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 47

financing business to its wholly owned subsidiary Tata Motors Finance Solutions Pvt. Ltd. by passing a special resolution as a going concern on a slump sale basis. The agreed total consideration for slump sale of ₹.6350,00 lakhs against the net assets value of ₹.5593,10.81 lakhs as on 31/03/2015 ... Financing Business) under a slump agreement on a going concern basis to TMFSL. The sale is effective on 31/03/2015. As a result of the slump sale, TMFL had recognised a gain of Rs.74,282.74 lakhs which has been 5 TMF Holdings Ltd., recorded as an Exceptional item by TMEL

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Appellant in its Goodwill return of income, on Goodwill arising pursuant to an arising on amalgamation, and a busines acquisition in a slump sale account of respectively, during the Impugned AY, failing to appreciate that Amalgamatio the same is a mandatory allowance n & Slump 13.2. The lower authorities erred ... Preference: 28.28 Excess consideration 1.72 27.16 treated as Goodwill Total Goodwill 28.88 Depreciation u/s.32 of 7.22 the Act @ 25% Acqusition of Business on Slump Sale: On March 30, 2014, the Assessee purchased the Infocomm business unit of Raychem RPG Private Limited ("RRPGL"), a JV between TE Connectivity Group

M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1933/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 50B

proceedings, the AO made following disallowances: 1) Disallowance of claims disallowed by insurance company – Rs. 4,68,655/- 2) Short term capital gain on slump sale – Rs.7,80,38,453/- 3) Software expenses – Rs. 16,42,976/- 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before ... partially allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee and upheld the computation of short term capital gain on slump sale computed by the AO at Rs.7,80,38,453/-. Page 3 of 19 3.3. The assessee is before us against the order of the CIT(A) challenging the computation

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Flipkart Online Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the MA is dismissed

ITA 369/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40a

Addition of capital expenditure in the form of intangibles – Rs.29,08,28,372 ii) Disallowance of depreciation claimed on assets sold as part of slump sale – Rs.3,99,89,130/- ii) Disallowance u/s 40a(i) Rs. 1,14,52,590 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee ... disallowance taking into consideration of the fact that the entire business of the assessee was transferred to M/s. Flipkart India Pvt Ltd in a slump sale and hence restricted the disallowance to the difference between the purchase price (Rs.242,48,68,773) and selling price (Rs.213

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1364/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1 V. Plot No.21, Bidadi Industrial Area Bangalore. Bidadi, Ramangara District – 562 109. Pan : Aabct5590Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Assessing Officer. The It(T)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arises Out Of A.O’S Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act, (Order Dated 29.07.2016). The It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 Arises Out Of The A.O.’S Order Passed U/S 154 (Order Dated 31.01.2011). The A.O. After Passing The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Passed Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Giving Effect To The Order Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) In Determining The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment From Rs.37,24,00,000, To Rs.39,13,10,000, Hence Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2 It(Tp)A Nos.1714/B/2016 & 1364/Bang/2017 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited. 2. The Grounds Raised For Both The Appeals Are Identical. The Assessee Has Also Filed Additional Ground Vide Letter Dated 27.11.2021.The Additional Grounds Are Essentially, Shades Of Grounds Raised In Form No.36. The Additional Grounds Are Legal Grounds Supported By Judicial Pronouncements & Does Not Require Examination Of New Facts Other Than On Record. Hence, The Additional Grounds Raised Are Taken On Record For Adjudication. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arising Out Of The Order Of The A.O. Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 92C

Restricting the adjustment to international transactions. (vi) Ground No.14 – Two companies wrongly included as comparable companies. (vii) Ground No.15 – depreciation on assets acquired on slump sale. (viii) Ground No.16 – Interest u/s 234B – consequential. Additional Grounds (ix) Ground No.14A – Application of turnover filter and related to Ground 4 & 5. (x) Ground

M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., Ramanagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1714/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 92C

Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4771/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 234DSection 250(6)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that know-how, business contacts, business information, etc. acquired as part of the slump sale described as „goodwill‟ were not entitled for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act?" 42. We find ... said decision has held that specified intangible assets, viz., business claims, business information, business records, contracts, employees and know- how acquired by assessee under slump sale agreement are in nature of 'business or commercial rights of similar nature' specified in section 32(1)(ii) and are accordingly eligible for depreciation

Gbt India Private Limited, Delhi vs. National E-Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay application is accordingly held to be infructuous

ITA 462/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

AEIPL) and the assessee on 1 June, 2014 under which the corporate travel business division in India was transferred to the assessee vide a slump sale on a going concern basis for which the assessee had paid a consideration of Rs.45,48,85,303/-. 8. During the relevant year ... goodwill acquired / purchased and capitalized in books of account on acquiring of Corporate Travel (‘CT’) division of American Express India Pvt. Ltd. (‘AEIPL’) on 'slump sale' as a going concern basis vide Local Business Transfer Agreement ('LTBA') dated June 1, 2014. 3.2.1 According to the Assessing Officer, depreciation claimed

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6620/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Tamilnadu), Engineering Plastic business at Manali (Tamilnadu) 24 and Engineering Plastic business at Pantnagar (Uttrakhand) for a consideration of Rs.150,31,26,228/- as slump sale on 31st December 2008. It was submitted that the businesses was purchased from M/s SRF Polymers Limited on lump sum basis and the amount ... were not found acceptable to AO. AO noted that the assessee had purchased three business for a consideration of Rs.150,31,26,228/- as slump sale without making its valuation. He noted that assessee, after the purchase had made valuation of the assets and liabilities which was determined at Rs.146

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Glf Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4556/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Glf Lifestyle Pvt.Ltd., Circle-10(1), Flat No.3A/1, Taj Apartment, C.R.Building, Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aaecg3087E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.12.2021

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue". • It would also be necessary to consider the relevant terms of the slump sale agreement entered into between the transferor and the transferee on dated 23.09.2011. 1. PB Pg. 55- Purchase of business (B) The seller has agreed ... Assessment Year : 2012-13] (GCPL) as on the date of transfer as Rs.12.96 Crores. GCPL has also paid tax on capital gain arising from slump sale of business. (PB Pg. 91) PB Pg. 43 & Pg. 123 The assets and liabilities transferred were recorded in the books of transferee (assessee

Globallogic India Ltd.(Formerly Known As Globallogic India Limited), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

ITA 868/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

completed transfer of its Product Engineering Services (PES) Business Unit to LTTSL effective January 1, 2014, PES Business Unit was transferred by way of slump sale for total sales consideration of Rs.489.53 crs based on ITA No.4740/Del./2018 fair valuation, GDA Technologies Inc., USA (GDA Inc.), a wholly owned subsidiary