← All Phrases

“going concern”

Judicial DoctrinesSlump SaleSlump Sale477 judgments

The decision most relied on for going concern is Areva T&D India Ltd. v. DCIT (345 ITR 421), cited in 97 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on going concern

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.

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.

Harshad J.Choksi v. CIT, Bombay City- VII
25 Taxmann.com 567 · 2012 · High Court
31
citing judgments

The conditions for claiming a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) are not fulfilled if the assessee fails to provide details of the parties associated with the debts or evidence that these amounts were offered to tax in earlier years. An alternate claim for loss under Section 28 is denied without evidence substantiating the loss in the relevant assessment year.

L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT
72 ITR 114 · 1969 · High Court
31
citing judgments

A business concern can still be considered to be carrying on its business even if there are long intervals of inactivity, provided it is kept alive, retains its registered office, and holds meetings. It is not necessary for a business to have work constantly to be considered in existence.

Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. v. DCIT
34 Taxmann.com 9 · 2013 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on goodwill, even if it's considered an intangible asset representing future profits, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. SMIFS Securities Ltd.

Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT
19 SOT 612 · 2008 · High Court
11
citing judgments

While the case involves a reference to "fresh tangible material", "valuation of shares", "going concern", and "indexed cost of acquisition", the provided passages do not clearly articulate the specific holding of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)
110 ITD 59 · 2008 · ITAT
10
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot improve his assessment by adopting a new theory during reassessment proceedings.

CIT v. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd.
291 ITR 362 · 2007 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on standby machinery that is kept ready for use, even if not actually put to use due to reasons such as raw material paucity. This is permissible as long as the business is a going concern.

Judgments citing going concern

Techpark Hotels Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Addi. CIT Special Range-9, New Delhi

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

ITA 9450/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumartechpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Addl. Cit, Ground Floor, Central Wing, Special Range-9, Thapar House 124, Janpath, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabce5833H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Shri Tavish Verma, Adv. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 11.09.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2017 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Declaring Loss Of Rs.23,06,28,106/- On 30.11.2015. Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 22.09.2016 Was Issued. Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued. Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Shri Nirmal Malpani, Ca Appeared & Filed Details. On Completion Of Proceedings, Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated Techpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234DSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

failing to appreciate that NAV method cannot be taken as the price at which transaction would take place in case of going concern and moreover, valuation of share is, in essence, a prophesy as to the future and must be based on facts available about future at the required date

M/S. Bank of American, N.A, Mumbai vs. The Jt DIT (I.T)3, Mumbai

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

ITA 4154/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

applicable. 53. During the hearing, a specific query was raised about whether the business was transferred as a going concern. In response thereto, it was submitted that the transfer of the business as a going concern would not impact the characterisation of the concern as an itemised sale

The Dy DIT (I.T) 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bank of America N.A., Mumbai

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

ITA 4090/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

applicable. 53. During the hearing, a specific query was raised about whether the business was transferred as a going concern. In response thereto, it was submitted that the transfer of the business as a going concern would not impact the characterisation of the concern as an itemised sale

Das Processors, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer-1 Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon

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

ITA 780/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 780/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Das Processors, 44 Vardhman Nagar Vs Income Tax Officer-1 Jain School Road, Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon, Fci Road, Chhattisgarh-491441 Near Raipur Naka Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh-491441 Pan: Aaifd6768Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 263

required to submit the following information: 1. Please give detailed note on your business activities of real estate involving various projects/sites as a going concern for the year and last 2 years 2 Das Processors vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon 2. Give detailed working of finished goods involving various purchases with

Shahanshah Dal Mill, Bhopal vs. ITO-5(3), Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 335/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 40A(2)(b)

Waswani in his registered will dated 09.02.11, had decided to give ownership of M*% Shahnshah Dal Mill to Shri Shyam Sundar Waswani as a going concern, consequently, the ownership of M’6 Shahnshah Dal Mill devolved to shri Shyam Sundar Waswani immediately after his death. On 15.06.14 immediately after death

Universal Industrial Equipment and Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 350/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 156ASection 254(1)Section 31(1)

goods or services critical to protect and preserve the value of the corporate debtor and manage the operations of such corporate debtor as a going concern, then the supply of such goods or services shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the period of moratorium, except where such Universal

Universal Industrial Equipment and Technical Services Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Nagpur

ITA 349/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 156ASection 254(1)Section 31(1)

goods or services critical to protect and preserve the value of the corporate debtor and manage the operations of such corporate debtor as a going concern, then the supply of such goods or services shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the period of moratorium, except where such corporate

Sri Venkateswara Oil Distributors, Guntur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gunter

ITA 444/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

lubricants of IOCL, which was earlier carried in the name of style of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Oil Distributors was taken over as a going concern by one of the erstwhile partners, viz. Shri Kota Nagaiah, S/o. Venkaiah resident of Pulipadu, Guntur District, who had, thereafter, continued the said business under ... being specifically queried as to whether the fact of the dissolution of the assessee-firm and taking over of its business as a going concern by Shri Kota Nagaiah as a sole-proprietor was brought to the notice of the A.O in the course of the assessment proceedings, had drawn

Charanbir Singh Sethi, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2774/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalcharanbir Singh Sethi Vs. Acit, Central Circle-19 Ar-717, The Aralias, Dlf Ara Centre, Golf Links, Dlf City, Jhandewalan, Phase-V, Gurgaon New Delhi – 110055 Haryana – 122009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasps9437K Appellant .. Respondent Amrit Pal Singh Chadha Vs. Acit, Central Circle 19 4410, Dlf Phase-V, Ara Centre, Kutub Enclave, Gurgaon Jhandewalan, Haryana – 122002 New Delhi – 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpc3215P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Amarjit Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Section 102(2)Section 143(1)

divesting the erstwhile management of its powers and vesting it in a professional agency to continue the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern until a resolution plan is drawn up. Once the resolution plan is approved, the management is handed over under the plan to the successful ... hereinabove, one of the principal objects of the I&B Code is providing for revival of the corporate debtor and to make it a going concern. The I&B Code is a complete Code in itself. Upon admission of petition under Section 7 there are various important duties and functions

Amrit Pal Singh Chadha, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2773/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalcharanbir Singh Sethi Vs. Acit, Central Circle-19 Ar-717, The Aralias, Dlf Ara Centre, Golf Links, Dlf City, Jhandewalan, Phase-V, Gurgaon New Delhi – 110055 Haryana – 122009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasps9437K Appellant .. Respondent Amrit Pal Singh Chadha Vs. Acit, Central Circle 19 4410, Dlf Phase-V, Ara Centre, Kutub Enclave, Gurgaon Jhandewalan, Haryana – 122002 New Delhi – 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpc3215P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Amarjit Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Section 102(2)Section 143(1)

divesting the erstwhile management of its powers and vesting it in a professional agency to continue the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern until a resolution plan is drawn up. Once the resolution plan is approved, the management is handed over under the plan to the successful ... hereinabove, one of the principal objects of the I&B Code is providing for revival of the corporate debtor and to make it a going concern. The I&B Code is a complete Code in itself. Upon admission of petition under Section 7 there are various important duties and functions

Bandekar Brothers Private Limited, Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

years/term) as and when renewal takes place, therefore such stamp duty payment is akin to legal expenditure incurred in keeping mining business alive as going concern. ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 39 M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 038/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 6. To buttress the allowability

Jan Kalyan Samiti, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward Exemption, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5120/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 13Section 13(2)(e)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

right to a specified amount of the share capital of a company carrving with it certain rights and liabilities while the company is a going concern and in its winding up. The shares or other interest of any member in a company are personal estate transferable in the manner provided

Trent Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5165/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(11)Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that the transaction with THPL was a slump sale of a business as a going concern and that the consideration of Rs. 87.82 crores was paid for the entire undertaking comprising assets and liabilities. It was contended that the excess consideration paid over ... recorded that the assessee had entered into a business transfer agreement with THPL, whereby the 'value fashion' business was transferred as a going concern by way of slump sale for a consideration of Rs. 87.82 crores. He noted the assessee's contention that the goodwill represented the excess of consideration

Raghu Rama Renewable Energy Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 876/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 145(2)Section 250

production and consequentially the sale value of finished goods or by the value of sale of the raw materials in a case of non going concern . 7.10 Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, claim of impairment loss of Rs.2,40,16,579/- on account of inventory of raw material

Raghu Rama Renewable Energy Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 875/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 145(2)Section 250

production and consequentially the sale value of finished goods or by the value of sale of the raw materials in a case of non going concern . 7.10 Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, claim of impairment loss of Rs.2,40,16,579/- on account of inventory of raw material

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

businesses were transferred by Infosys Limited to the appellant pursuant to a duly executed Business Transfer Agreement. The transfer was carried out on a going concern basis for a lump-sum consideration, and the appellant acquired all assets, liabilities, rights, and obligations relating to the said businesses. As part

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

businesses were transferred by Infosys Limited to the appellant pursuant to a duly executed Business Transfer Agreement. The transfer was carried out on a going concern basis for a lump-sum consideration, and the appellant acquired all assets, liabilities, rights, and obligations relating to the said businesses. As part

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

businesses were transferred by Infosys Limited to the appellant pursuant to a duly executed Business Transfer Agreement. The transfer was carried out on a going concern basis for a lump-sum consideration, and the appellant acquired all assets, liabilities, rights, and obligations relating to the said businesses. As part

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

businesses were transferred by Infosys Limited to the appellant pursuant to a duly executed Business Transfer Agreement. The transfer was carried out on a going concern basis for a lump-sum consideration, and the appellant acquired all assets, liabilities, rights, and obligations relating to the said businesses. As part

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

businesses were transferred by Infosys Limited to the appellant pursuant to a duly executed Business Transfer Agreement. The transfer was carried out on a going concern basis for a lump-sum consideration, and the appellant acquired all assets, liabilities, rights, and obligations relating to the said businesses. As part