← All Phrases

“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
97
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
58
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
57
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
44
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
42
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
36
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
34
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

Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2767/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora and Nikhil Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 153Section 32Section 43(1)

Indo Asian Fusegear Limited was amalgamated with the appellant without appreciating the fact that the appellant had acquired the said division through a slump sale from Indo Asian Fusegear Limited and therefore the entire foundation of the order passed by the learned CIT(A) denying the claim of depreciation ... section 43(1) which are applicable to a scheme of amalgamation and in not appreciating that the assets were acquired through a slump sale and not under a scheme of amalgamation. 11. in relying on various decisions to disallow depreciation on goodwill without appreciating that the facts in the said

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3369/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaishri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 48Section 50B

erred in holding that transfer expenses of Rs.27,07,99,999/- for the purpose of computing capital gains on slump sale is an allowable deduction ignoring the fact that Section 50B of the Act is a special provision and a code in itself for computation of capital gain arising ... slump sale and therefore, no other provision of the Act, other than the provision contained in section 50B of the Act shall be applicable?" 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that transfer expenses of Rs.27

Orion India Systems Private Limited, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. PCIT, Mumbai-Six Circle Fifteen (One)(One)

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1449/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Khevana GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 50B(1)Section 92C

interest of revenue merely stating on the basis that AO failed make inquiry whether the seller has paid taxes on the profits realized on 'Slump Sale' u/s. 50B(1) of the Income Tax Act for the purpose of allowing depreciation in the hands of Purchaser(Appellant). 3. Whether ... Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, was correct in arriving at conclusion that appellant is not eligible for depreciation on 'Goodwill' acquired under 'Slump Sale'.” 3. In the present appeal, the assessee is aggrieved against the invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act by the learned

Allcargo Gati Limited(Formally Known As Gati Limited), Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 190/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 37(1)

while deciding the appeal for A.Y.2010-11 except one i.e., “LD.CIT(A) has erred in allowing loss of Rs.1,19,40,368/- on slump sale of shipping business division”. 32. In this regard, ld.AR has submitted that the assessee has entered into agreement with slump sale of shipping business. The department ... filed the appeal before the Tribunal saying that the profit earned on account of slump sale of shipping business is subjected to tax, for which the assessee has already filed application under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the order has been passed in favour of the department acknowledging that profit

Allcargo Gati Limited(Formally Known As Gati Limited), Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 1721/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 37(1)

while deciding the appeal for A.Y.2010-11 except one i.e., “LD.CIT(A) has erred in allowing loss of Rs.1,19,40,368/- on slump sale of shipping business division”. 32. In this regard, ld.AR has submitted that the assessee has entered into agreement with slump sale of shipping business. The department ... filed the appeal before the Tribunal saying that the profit earned on account of slump sale of shipping business is subjected to tax, for which the assessee has already filed application under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the order has been passed in favour of the department acknowledging that profit

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

Erode) Ltd Vs. ACIT in WP No. 12510 and 12511/2004; 12255/2006; 3830/2007; 1054/2008, 2629/2009 among others dated 16.10.2020 had also considered the aspect of slump sale under the demerger scheme. The issue that was before the Hon‟ble Madras High Court was whether depreciation is eligible to that assessee ... Orissa, PSCL became a sick industrial company. Consequently, a scheme of arrangement was confirmed by the Company Court, the said scheme contemplated a slump sale u/s 2(42C) of the Act wherein transfer of assets of Erode Unit was made on fair market value to the transferee company and transferee

ACIT, Circle 10, New Delhi vs. Indus Tower Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

Erode) Ltd Vs. ACIT in WP No. 12510 and 12511/2004; 12255/2006; 3830/2007; 1054/2008, 2629/2009 among others dated 16.10.2020 had also considered the aspect of slump sale under the demerger scheme. The issue that was before the Hon‟ble Madras High Court was whether depreciation is eligible to that assessee ... Orissa, PSCL became a sick industrial company. Consequently, a scheme of arrangement was confirmed by the Company Court, the said scheme contemplated a slump sale u/s 2(42C) of the Act wherein transfer of assets of Erode Unit was made on fair market value to the transferee company and transferee

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1962/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

Erode) Ltd Vs. ACIT in WP No. 12510 and 12511/2004; 12255/2006; 3830/2007; 1054/2008, 2629/2009 among others dated 16.10.2020 had also considered the aspect of slump sale under the demerger scheme. The issue that was before the Hon‟ble Madras High Court was whether depreciation is eligible to that assessee ... Orissa, PSCL became a sick industrial company. Consequently, a scheme of arrangement was confirmed by the Company Court, the said scheme contemplated a slump sale u/s 2(42C) of the Act wherein transfer of assets of Erode Unit was made on fair market value to the transferee company and transferee

Incorp Advisory Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4864/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: ShriMargav Shukla & Shri ShubhamFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Ld. Pr. CIT-6 error in concluding that the intangible assets were individually valued in a transaction of slump sale vide Business Transfer Agreement, thereby concluding that the assessee is ineligible to claim depreciation on Intangible Assets acquired and directing the Assessing Officer ... value to claim higher depreciation. Verification of the source of investment in these intangible assets was also mandated.The assessee acquired three units through a slump sale during the impugned assessment year. Upon examination of the computation of income and the Tax Audit Report (TAR), it was noted that the assessee

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -14(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed

ITA 5446/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B R Baskaran: A.Y. : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)

Explanation 7 to Section 43(1) of the Act. 15. The learned CIT(A) has thereafter in para 8 found that the case of slump sale (as against the case of amalgamation in the present case) would stand on a different footing. It is not necessary to go into ... issue of slump sale as discussed in para 8. 16. We find that what is relevant is the decision of Supreme Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra), which has been followed by this Tribunal in several decisions which were brought to the notice of the learned

Lanco Solar (Gujarat) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 906/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 905 & 906/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Lanco Solar (Gujarat) Vs. Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Hyderabad Ward 16(1) Pan:Aabcl1095J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gudimella V P Pavan
Section 80I

power. During the financial year 2016-17, the assessee purchased a solar division from its holding company i.e. M/s. Lanco Infratech Ltd under slump sale transfer vide business transfer agreement dated 23/02/2017. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 17/10/2017 declaring loss of Rs.138 ... Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has acquired the solar power division from its holding company, by way of slump sale as an ongoing concern basis. He has referred to the business transfer agreement dated 23/2/2017 and submitted that as per clause

Lanco Solar (Gujarat) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 905/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 905 & 906/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Lanco Solar (Gujarat) Vs. Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Hyderabad Ward 16(1) Pan:Aabcl1095J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gudimella V P Pavan
Section 80I

power. During the financial year 2016-17, the assessee purchased a solar division from its holding company i.e. M/s. Lanco Infratech Ltd under slump sale transfer vide business transfer agreement dated 23/02/2017. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 17/10/2017 declaring loss of Rs.138 ... Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has acquired the solar power division from its holding company, by way of slump sale as an ongoing concern basis. He has referred to the business transfer agreement dated 23/2/2017 and submitted that as per clause

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3772/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Dow Chemicals International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1200/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Steel City Beverages Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3133/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh.M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Steel City Beverages Vs Ito Limited, C/O Advocate Ward- 24 (1) Kanika Jain D-80, Lgf New Delhi Panchsheel New Delhi - 1110017 Pan No.Aaccs3967M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40Section 40ASection 47A(7)

under franchise of Pepsi and trading of soft drinks. The business of the company / undertaking located at Adityapur Kandra Road, Jamshedpur was sold on slump sale basis. The assessee has filed its return of income declaring Nil for the A.Y. 2018-2019 on 25-10-2018 after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation

3A Composites India Private Limied, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4096/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43(6)Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM

DCIT Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. Arihant Plantation Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1238/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250Section 68

these were opening balances coming from preceding year. It was explained that the assessee company had acquired one tea estate as a whole, under slump sale, taking over existing assets and liabilities as on 11.04.2012 at book value and accordingly, all the existing assets and liabilities of the aforesaid

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2325/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

financial statements filed by the assessee contains the following statement with regard to the goodwill capitalized by the assessee in the financial statements – “Slump Sale The Company at its Board meeting held on 19th November 2013 approved the execution of various transactions and documents including slump sale agreement, ticket asset ... including stamp duty) to Jet Airways (India) Limited against the Stamp sale agreement. On satisfaction of conditions to the Slump sale agreement and pursuant to Business Transfer agreement (BTA) dated 19th November 2013 between Jet Privilege Private Limited ("Company") and Jet Airways (India) Limited, ("transferor"), the Company acquired Jet Privilege

Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2287/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

financial statements filed by the assessee contains the following statement with regard to the goodwill capitalized by the assessee in the financial statements – “Slump Sale The Company at its Board meeting held on 19th November 2013 approved the execution of various transactions and documents including slump sale agreement, ticket asset ... including stamp duty) to Jet Airways (India) Limited against the Stamp sale agreement. On satisfaction of conditions to the Slump sale agreement and pursuant to Business Transfer agreement (BTA) dated 19th November 2013 between Jet Privilege Private Limited ("Company") and Jet Airways (India) Limited, ("transferor"), the Company acquired Jet Privilege

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2163/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

financial statements filed by the assessee contains the following statement with regard to the goodwill capitalized by the assessee in the financial statements – “Slump Sale The Company at its Board meeting held on 19th November 2013 approved the execution of various transactions and documents including slump sale agreement, ticket asset ... including stamp duty) to Jet Airways (India) Limited against the Stamp sale agreement. On satisfaction of conditions to the Slump sale agreement and pursuant to Business Transfer agreement (BTA) dated 19th November 2013 between Jet Privilege Private Limited ("Company") and Jet Airways (India) Limited, ("transferor"), the Company acquired Jet Privilege