← 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

Star Asia Region Fz Llc, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1813/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

DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4607/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 (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

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4562/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 (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

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 (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

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3385/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 (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

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 (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), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1781/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going concern. concern. 7. In the case of Smifs Securities Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that 7. In the case of Smifs Securities

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1780/MUM/2023[2016-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2016-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going concern. concern. 7. In the case of Smifs Securities Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that 7. In the case of Smifs Securities

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1779/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going concern. concern. 7. In the case of Smifs Securities Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that 7. In the case of Smifs Securities

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1764/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going concern. concern. 7. In the case of Smifs Securities Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that 7. In the case of Smifs Securities

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1763/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going concern. concern. 7. In the case of Smifs Securities Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that 7. In the case of Smifs Securities

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1762/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going concern. concern. 7. In the case of Smifs Securities Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that 7. In the case of Smifs Securities

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1761/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going concern. concern. 7. In the case of Smifs Securities Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that 7. In the case of Smifs Securities

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1760/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going transferred and vested in the transferee company as a going concern. concern. 7. In the case of Smifs Securities Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that 7. In the case of Smifs Securities

ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi vs. Sharp Eye Broadcasting Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 1105/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

business based on the value of the cash flows that a business is expected to generate in future. This approach is appropriate in most going concern situations as the worth of a business is generally a function of its ability to earn flow and to provide an appropriate return

DCIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. Rapid Buildwell Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6905/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Ragini VinaikFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 14(1)Section 14(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi vs. Statestreet Hcl Services(India) P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1068/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Years : 2014-15] Addl.Cit, Vs Statestreet Hcl Services (India) P.Ltd., Special Range-8, 806, Siddharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaqcs8148G Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Statestreet Hcl Services (India) P.Ltd., Circle-24(2), 806, Siddharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaqcs8148G ( Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. & Shri Arpit Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : Both Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A)-31, New Delhi Dated 27.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 & Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Dated 28.01.2020 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 10ASection 143(3)

Date (in the manner and to the extent indicated in Clause 3.7), the Business, free from all Encumbrances, as a slump rate of a going concern, at and for an aggregate purchase price of INR 105, 000, 000 (Purchase Price") (Rupees One Hundred Five Million Only). Such Purchase Price ... Date (in the manner and to the extent indicated in Clause 3.7), the Business, free from all Encumbrances, as a slump rate of a going concern, at and for an aggregate purchase price of INR 105, 000, 000 (Purchase Price") (Rupees One Hundred Five Million Only). Such Purchase Price

Addl.CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi vs. Statestreet Hcl Services(India) P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7568/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Years : 2014-15] Addl.Cit, Vs Statestreet Hcl Services (India) P.Ltd., Special Range-8, 806, Siddharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaqcs8148G Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Statestreet Hcl Services (India) P.Ltd., Circle-24(2), 806, Siddharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaqcs8148G ( Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. & Shri Arpit Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : Both Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A)-31, New Delhi Dated 27.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 & Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Dated 28.01.2020 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 10ASection 143(3)

Date (in the manner and to the extent indicated in Clause 3.7), the Business, free from all Encumbrances, as a slump rate of a going concern, at and for an aggregate purchase price of INR 105, 000, 000 (Purchase Price") (Rupees One Hundred Five Million Only). Such Purchase Price ... Date (in the manner and to the extent indicated in Clause 3.7), the Business, free from all Encumbrances, as a slump rate of a going concern, at and for an aggregate purchase price of INR 105, 000, 000 (Purchase Price") (Rupees One Hundred Five Million Only). Such Purchase Price

DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hind Aluminium Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1904/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

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

DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Mdlr Airlines Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7824/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Central Circle-14, New Mdlr Airlines Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Flat No. 4, R. R. Apartment, 3-4, Room No. 354, E-2, Ara Centre, Vs Mehglapuri, Mehruli, Civil Jhandewalan Ext., New Delhi- . Lines, New Delhi-110030. 55. (Pan: Aaecm5231C) (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. For Revenue : Ms Suneeta Verma, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Suneeta Verma, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

intention of the assessee to revive the operations. In this respect, assessee had submitted that it had claimed the expenses on the principle of ‘going concern’ and are, therefore, allowable. However, Ld. AO disallowed the same. 4. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed a paper book containing