“slump sale”

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai vs. Digital Insight India Products P. Ltd., Mumbai

facts submitted by the Appellant and erred in law by violating the principles laid down under Section 50B of the Act, in treating the slump sale transaction as income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession. 3. The learned CIT(A)/ Ld. AO has erred ... facts, in treating the transaction of slump sale of business as "business sale" and not "slump sale" of business and thereby. has erred, in law and on facts, in treating net gain arising on slump sale of business as taxable business income instead of the same being taxable under

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

hence important to understand the purpose of introduction of sub-section (12) in the statute... 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

Nipro Tube Glass Private Limited, Thane vs. Additional, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

offer which can substantiate its claim with respect to Long Term Capital Loss amounting to Rs.121,21,40,974/- arising on account of slump sale. Accordingly, the said long term capital loss was disallowed. The AO further made addition of Rs.35,27,87,243/- which was reduced by the assessee ... Learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in denying carry forward of long term capital loss of Rs 121,21,40,974/- arising on slump sale of business without appreciating that AO had decided said issue without hearing the Assessee and said loss has arisen as per law and the computation

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(3)), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai vs. Welspun Living Limited (Formerly Known As Welspun India Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am Dy. Cit, Central Circle-3(3) Welspun Living Limited (Formerly Room No. 406, Kautilya Bhawan, Known As Welspun India Ltd.) B Wing, 9Th Floor, Trade World, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Lower Parel, Delisle Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacw 1259 N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Harsh M. Kapadia & Shri Ajay Nagpal Respondent By : Dr. Kishor Dhule Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vp: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against Order Dated 12.07.2024 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short), Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, The Revenue Has Challenged Deletion Of Disallowance Made U/S. 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Read With Rule 8D, While Computing Income Under The Normal Provisions Of The Act, As Also, While Computing Book Profit U/S. 115Jb Of The Act.

concerned, the A.O. observed that the undertaking in respect of which the assessee had claimed deduction was acquired by the assessee by way of slump sale. Therefore, he held that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction in respect to such undertaking. Accordingly, he disallowed assessee’s claim. Subsequently ... decision of disallowing the deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act on the ground that the undertaking /unit was acquired by the assessee through a slump sale. 11. Being aggrieved with such disallowance, the assessee challenged it before the first appellate authority. 12. While considering assessee’s submission in context

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartechem Technologies Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mahadhan Agritech Ltd. (Formerly Cit(A)-50, Dcit Cen. 8(1), Known As Smartchem Technologies 656, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ltd.), Mumbai-400021. Survey No. 93, Sai Hira, Mundhwa, Pune-411036. Pan No. Aacca 5046 P Appellant Respondent

from appointed date i.e. 1/01/2015. entities were revised from appointed date i.e. 1/01/2015. Consequently, no transfer of intangibles Consequently, no transfer of intangibles under slump sale on unit under slump sale on unit from ‘Deepak Fertilizers Deepak Fertilizers’ to ‘Fertichem’ was recorded , but on corded , but on transfer of same ... this arrangement, the In this arrangement, the ‘TAN’ and ‘fertilizer fertilizer’ unit were transferred by way of a slump transferred by way of a slump sale/ exchange to exchange to ‘Fertichem’ at Rs.743 crores and on the same day the same business was Rs.743 crores and on the same

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

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

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

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

L & T Technologies Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the additional grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeel&T Technologies Services Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income L&T House, N.M. Marg, Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai Pan: Aaccl4310P Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

circumstances of the case 2. The CIT(A) has erred in accepting the contention of AO that the transfer is not a valid slump sale even though the AO has not given any cogent reason for the same and has never controverted that the transaction in question is the transfer ... Engineering Service (in short PES) division businessfrom L&T Infotech Ltd (in short LTIL) during Assessment Year 2014-15 & 2015-16by way of slump sale on a going concern basis as the physical assets, manpower and other live assignments/lease/deeds. The assessee filed its revised return of income