← 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

Qrg Central Hospital and Research Centre Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4283/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshqrg Central Hospital Research Vs. Acit, Centre Ltd, Circle-21(2), 909, 9Th Floor, Surya Kiran New Delhi Building, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacq1682M Qrg Central Hospital Research Vs. Acit, Centre Ltd, Circle-20(2), 909, 9Th Floor, Surya Kiran New Delhi Building, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacq1682M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/02/2024

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 15Section 23Section 28Section 37

submitted as under:- “i) That the business of the erstwhile partnership firm was taken over by the appellant with effect from 01/04/2008 as a going concern with all its assets and liabilities. The copy of the balance sheet and accounts for the year ending 31/03/2008 is enclosed. The note ... Schedule 15 reads as under:" The Company has taken over the running business of the partnership firm M/s Central Hospital & Research Centre, a going concern with all the assets and liabilities w.e.f. 01.04.2008. The total assets and liabilities............ The suit filed by the is regarding the rendition of the accounts

Qrg Central Hospital and Research Centre Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4854/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshqrg Central Hospital Research Vs. Acit, Centre Ltd, Circle-21(2), 909, 9Th Floor, Surya Kiran New Delhi Building, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacq1682M Qrg Central Hospital Research Vs. Acit, Centre Ltd, Circle-20(2), 909, 9Th Floor, Surya Kiran New Delhi Building, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacq1682M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/02/2024

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 15Section 23Section 28Section 37

submitted as under:- “i) That the business of the erstwhile partnership firm was taken over by the appellant with effect from 01/04/2008 as a going concern with all its assets and liabilities. The copy of the balance sheet and accounts for the year ending 31/03/2008 is enclosed. The note ... Schedule 15 reads as under:" The Company has taken over the running business of the partnership firm M/s Central Hospital & Research Centre, a going concern with all the assets and liabilities w.e.f. 01.04.2008. The total assets and liabilities............ The suit filed by the is regarding the rendition of the accounts

Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl /Jt/ACIT/NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1554/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

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 to the TPO was made for determination

Siel Ltd vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1)

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

ITA 2659/DEL/2004[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 115J

payment of Rs. 1.95 crores is a consideration for acquisition of Kanpur Sugar Works. This is cost of acquisition towards capital assets of a going concern and cannot be taken to be on revenue account as it is not the business of the assessee to take over and sell ... undertaking as a going concern. Since the assessee itself is in the sugar business, cost of acquisition of a going concern for acquiring extra capacity is a capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. We do not find any error in the findings

Goldstone Infra, Rajendranagara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8 (2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 570/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CA appeared for Sri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan
Section 115Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 69A

Appellate Commissioner erred in not taking on record the submissions made with respect to the difference in PAN number, selling of the business as Going Concern and the accounts thereof.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee, which is a firm, has not filed Income Tax Return

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J K Shah Education Pvt Ltd, Mumbai City

ITA 2062/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, D.R
Section 143(3)

rights, water rights; (j) goodwill related intangible assets, such as, institutional goodwill, professional practice goodwill, personal goodwill of professional, celebrity goodwill, general business going concern value; (k) methods, programmes, systems, procedures, campaigns, surveys, studies, forecasts, estimates, customer lists, or technical data; (l) any other similar item that derives its value

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J K Shah Education Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2061/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, D.R
Section 143(3)

rights, water rights; (j) goodwill related intangible assets, such as, institutional goodwill, professional practice goodwill, personal goodwill of professional, celebrity goodwill, general business going concern value; (k) methods, programmes, systems, procedures, campaigns, surveys, studies, forecasts, estimates, customer lists, or technical data; (l) any other similar item that derives its value

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J K Shah Education Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2060/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, D.R
Section 143(3)

rights, water rights; (j) goodwill related intangible assets, such as, institutional goodwill, professional practice goodwill, personal goodwill of professional, celebrity goodwill, general business going concern value; (k) methods, programmes, systems, procedures, campaigns, surveys, studies, forecasts, estimates, customer lists, or technical data; (l) any other similar item that derives its value

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J K Shah Education Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2059/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, D.R
Section 143(3)

rights, water rights; (j) goodwill related intangible assets, such as, institutional goodwill, professional practice goodwill, personal goodwill of professional, celebrity goodwill, general business going concern value; (k) methods, programmes, systems, procedures, campaigns, surveys, studies, forecasts, estimates, customer lists, or technical data; (l) any other similar item that derives its value

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2241/Ahd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vodafone India Services बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 4(1)(2) Vs. Indiabulls Finance Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room 1201, 12Th Floor, Tower-1, No.209, Pratyaksh Kar Senapati Bapat Road, Bhavan, Near Elphinstone (West), Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Mumbai-400013. Ahmedabad-380015. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1849D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv) Revenue By: Letter Dated 11.10.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 31.08.2018, Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Dated 05.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Sole Grievance Of The Appellant Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Depreciation Claimed On Goodwill.

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv)For Respondent: Letter dated 11.10.2023
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

assessee on goodwill arising pursuant to acquisition of the retail business arm of its associate concern by way of a scheme of arrangement on going concern basis. In this case also, the consideration agreed was higher than the difference in the value of tangible assets and the liabilities which

Nelco Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3825/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 15(2)(1) Nelco Limited Room No.357, 2Nd Floor, El-6, Electronic Zone, Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710 Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1983C

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50B

agreement. He further referred to clause no.3 at page no.8 of the agreement to show that the undertakings are transferred as a going concern. He further referred to clause no.4 where the clauses of enterprises value, closing consideration earn out and payments are mentioned. Referring to clause no.4.1, he submitted ... simply defined as a sale where no particular value is given to the assets and liabilities of a business. It is known as a going-concern transfer or an as-is transfer. In this case, the agreed price of sales or consideration was made on the basis

DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

capital for the alternative use by the assessee company. The assessing officer further stated that assessee has transferred the entire detergent undertaking as a going concern to its sister concern and the sale consideration has also been provided in schedule III at a lumpsum value without assigning any value ... sale as provided in Sec. 2(42C) of the Act. On query, the assessee pointed out that while transferring the detergent business as a going concern all the assets were individually valued by the approved valuer based on which the value related to fixed assets transferred was determined. Similarly working

Procter & Gamble Hygine & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1735/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

capital for the alternative use by the assessee company. The assessing officer further stated that assessee has transferred the entire detergent undertaking as a going concern to its sister concern and the sale consideration has also been provided in schedule III at a lumpsum value without assigning any value ... sale as provided in Sec. 2(42C) of the Act. On query, the assessee pointed out that while transferring the detergent business as a going concern all the assets were individually valued by the approved valuer based on which the value related to fixed assets transferred was determined. Similarly working

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hyginene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3566/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

capital for the alternative use by the assessee company. The assessing officer further stated that assessee has transferred the entire detergent undertaking as a going concern to its sister concern and the sale consideration has also been provided in schedule III at a lumpsum value without assigning any value ... sale as provided in Sec. 2(42C) of the Act. On query, the assessee pointed out that while transferring the detergent business as a going concern all the assets were individually valued by the approved valuer based on which the value related to fixed assets transferred was determined. Similarly working

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3518/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

capital for the alternative use by the assessee company. The assessing officer further stated that assessee has transferred the entire detergent undertaking as a going concern to its sister concern and the sale consideration has also been provided in schedule III at a lumpsum value without assigning any value ... sale as provided in Sec. 2(42C) of the Act. On query, the assessee pointed out that while transferring the detergent business as a going concern all the assets were individually valued by the approved valuer based on which the value related to fixed assets transferred was determined. Similarly working

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Cir. 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2277/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

capital for the alternative use by the assessee company. The assessing officer further stated that assessee has transferred the entire detergent undertaking as a going concern to its sister concern and the sale consideration has also been provided in schedule III at a lumpsum value without assigning any value ... sale as provided in Sec. 2(42C) of the Act. On query, the assessee pointed out that while transferring the detergent business as a going concern all the assets were individually valued by the approved valuer based on which the value related to fixed assets transferred was determined. Similarly working

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2167/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

capital for the alternative use by the assessee company. The assessing officer further stated that assessee has transferred the entire detergent undertaking as a going concern to its sister concern and the sale consideration has also been provided in schedule III at a lumpsum value without assigning any value ... sale as provided in Sec. 2(42C) of the Act. On query, the assessee pointed out that while transferring the detergent business as a going concern all the assets were individually valued by the approved valuer based on which the value related to fixed assets transferred was determined. Similarly working

M/S.Pathanmthitta Dist. Co-Op Bank Ltd, Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable and, in any case, without merit

ITA 431/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daspathanamthitta District Dy. Cit, Circle- 1 Co-Op Bank Ltd. Thiruvalla Near Ksrtc Bus Stand Vs. Mylapara Road Pathanamthitta 689645 [Pan:Aabfp9182H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aswin Gopakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

thus, primarily factual. The liability, where ascertained, is to be provided for; conservatism being a fundamental accounting assumption on which the accounts of a going concern are to be based (refer AS-1 issued under section 145(2) of the Act). The quantum of provision is to be based

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

ITA 6589/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(9)Section 80HSection 92C

construction equipments manufacturing undertaking at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Undertaking’) to its associate concern M/s L & T Komatsu Ltd. as going concern for a lumpsum consideration. However, the Assessing Officer, in Assessment Year 1998-99, disregarded the transaction as slump sale transaction and hypothetically allocated the values

Star Television Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1814/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)

International Movies Ltd (SIML) vide business agreement dated 28/02/2009 for a consideration of Rs.42,55,32,513/-. The assessee transferred the business as a going concern to SIML. The assessee did not offer the gain arising out of such transaction to taxation in India for the reason that the channel