← 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

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6580/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Kovalam Beach, Thiruvananthapuram, known as “Kovalam Leela Raviz Hotel”. The assessee acquired the hotel undertaking of M/s Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. on a going concern basis by way of slump sale under a Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court under sections ... vide order dated 30.03.2015. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had acquired Hotel Leela, Kovalam as a going concern under slump sale from M/s Hotel Leela Ventures Ltd. The assessee claimed depreciation aggregating to Rs. 25,86,15,073/- on the assets

Kovalam Resort Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6579/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Kovalam Beach, Thiruvananthapuram, known as “Kovalam Leela Raviz Hotel”. The assessee acquired the hotel undertaking of M/s Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. on a going concern basis by way of slump sale under a Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court under sections ... vide order dated 30.03.2015. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had acquired Hotel Leela, Kovalam as a going concern under slump sale from M/s Hotel Leela Ventures Ltd. The assessee claimed depreciation aggregating to Rs. 25,86,15,073/- on the assets

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6578/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Kovalam Beach, Thiruvananthapuram, known as “Kovalam Leela Raviz Hotel”. The assessee acquired the hotel undertaking of M/s Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. on a going concern basis by way of slump sale under a Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court under sections ... vide order dated 30.03.2015. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had acquired Hotel Leela, Kovalam as a going concern under slump sale from M/s Hotel Leela Ventures Ltd. The assessee claimed depreciation aggregating to Rs. 25,86,15,073/- on the assets

Soni Somani Infrastructure, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Pune

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

ITA 2458/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2458/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Soni Somani Infrastructure, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Solapur. 560/31, South Sadar Bazar, Vinayak Nagar, Solapur- 413003. Pan : Abvfs4209B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shriniwas G. Bhutada Shri Vishnu D. Bhutada Revenue By : Smt. Sailee Dhole Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Based On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Act'), Against The Order Dated 27Th Aug 2025 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order') Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- Nfac

For Appellant: Shri Shriniwas G. BhutadaFor Respondent: Smt. Sailee Dhole
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

income. 2) The Ld. CIT erred in not appreciating the fact that activity of construction continues for more than one financial year as going concern and provisions for expenditure were actually incurred in subsequent financial years and such actual expenditure were never disallowed in subsequent year/s results the levy

Anshul Specialty Molecules Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7503/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaranshul Speciality Dcit Circle Molecules Private 1(1)(1), Mumbai Limited Vs. Aayakar Bhawani, Flexcel Park, „C‟ Wing, S.V. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Nr. 24 Karat Multiplex, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai- 400102 Pan/Gir No. Aabca4003H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri H. N. Motiwala, Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had, during the relevant previous year, acquired a going concern manufacturing unit from M/s Anmol Antioxidants Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, by way of slump sale, for an aggregate consideration ... allowing depreciation of Rs. 1,22,44,409/- on goodwill of Rs. 9,79,55,271/- arose on acquisition of manufacturing unit as going concern from Anmol Antioxidants Pvt. Ltd. on February 10, 2020 on slump sale basis. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances on the case

Radhika Jewellers, Rajkot vs. Dy.CIT 2 (1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

concern of Shri Ashokkumar M Zinzuwadia, namely, Radhika Jewellers, has been taken over by partnership -firm M/s. Radhika Jewellers, with effect from 01.07.2014, as going concern. The closing stock as on 30.06.2014 with all assets and liabilities which include stock and shop the value of the closing stock ... observed by the assessing officer that in the garb of transfer of business of going concern, the assessee has inflated the value of stock from Rs. 34,33,30,821/- to Rs. 77,75,10,150/-. This stock has been brought in the partnership firm by way of capital contribution

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Shri Harish Bahl, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2802/DEL/2024[2008]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year :2008] Dcit Vs Shri Harish Bahl Circle-22(2) D-119, Lajpat Nagar-1 New Delhi-110024. Delhi Pan-Aahpb3859K Appellant Respondent Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Nikhil Rungta Date Of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am:

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

ITA No.2802/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B”BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects International Limited, Gujarat

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

ITA 6159/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

order all the assets, liabilities, rights, claims, duties and obligations etc. of JMC shall stand transferred to and vested in KPIL on a going concern basis, so as to become the assets, liabilities (including tax liabilities), rights, claims, duties and obligations etc. of KPIL. It is also mentioned that ... NCLT order, all assets, liabilities (including tax liabilities), rights, duties, claims and obligations of JMC were transferred to and vested in KPIL on a going concern basis. It is further provided in the scheme that any legal proceedings initiated by or against JMC shall henceforth be continued by or against

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects Inernational Limited, Gujarat

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

ITA 6114/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

order all the assets, liabilities, rights, claims, duties and obligations etc. of JMC shall stand transferred to and vested in KPIL on a going concern basis, so as to become the assets, liabilities (including tax liabilities), rights, claims, duties and obligations etc. of KPIL. It is also mentioned that ... NCLT order, all assets, liabilities (including tax liabilities), rights, duties, claims and obligations of JMC were transferred to and vested in KPIL on a going concern basis. It is further provided in the scheme that any legal proceedings initiated by or against JMC shall henceforth be continued by or against

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects International Limited, Gujarat

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

ITA 6113/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

order all the assets, liabilities, rights, claims, duties and obligations etc. of JMC shall stand transferred to and vested in KPIL on a going concern basis, so as to become the assets, liabilities (including tax liabilities), rights, claims, duties and obligations etc. of KPIL. It is also mentioned that ... NCLT order, all assets, liabilities (including tax liabilities), rights, duties, claims and obligations of JMC were transferred to and vested in KPIL on a going concern basis. It is further provided in the scheme that any legal proceedings initiated by or against JMC shall henceforth be continued by or against

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Gujarat vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5961/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

order all the assets, liabilities, rights, claims, duties and obligations etc. of JMC shall stand transferred to and vested in KPIL on a going concern basis, so as to become the assets, liabilities (including tax liabilities), rights, claims, duties and obligations etc. of KPIL. It is also mentioned that ... NCLT order, all assets, liabilities (including tax liabilities), rights, duties, claims and obligations of JMC were transferred to and vested in KPIL on a going concern basis. It is further provided in the scheme that any legal proceedings initiated by or against JMC shall henceforth be continued by or against

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5960/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

order all the assets, liabilities, rights, claims, duties and obligations etc. of JMC shall stand transferred to and vested in KPIL on a going concern basis, so as to become the assets, liabilities (including tax liabilities), rights, claims, duties and obligations etc. of KPIL. It is also mentioned that ... NCLT order, all assets, liabilities (including tax liabilities), rights, duties, claims and obligations of JMC were transferred to and vested in KPIL on a going concern basis. It is further provided in the scheme that any legal proceedings initiated by or against JMC shall henceforth be continued by or against

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Gujarat vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5959/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

order all the assets, liabilities, rights, claims, duties and obligations etc. of JMC shall stand transferred to and vested in KPIL on a going concern basis, so as to become the assets, liabilities (including tax liabilities), rights, claims, duties and obligations etc. of KPIL. It is also mentioned that ... NCLT order, all assets, liabilities (including tax liabilities), rights, duties, claims and obligations of JMC were transferred to and vested in KPIL on a going concern basis. It is further provided in the scheme that any legal proceedings initiated by or against JMC shall henceforth be continued by or against

Geeta Babu Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands

ITA 138/MUM/2026[AY 2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 292BSection 68

assessee's funds have been routed back to it in the form of unsecured loans. It is also evident that the lender companies are going concerns having sufficient reserves and surplus to advance loan to the assessee which has been undertaken through proper banking channel. Due interest has been paid

Iyogi Technical Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 323/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 194(2)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

excess or shortage of provision created for the purpose relating to previous year. Since the accounts are being maintained on the basis of going concern, the assessee has to submit the relevant information of past provisions created over the years versus actual refund made by the assessee. For the sake

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Iyogi Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2064/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 194(2)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

excess or shortage of provision created for the purpose relating to previous year. Since the accounts are being maintained on the basis of going concern, the assessee has to submit the relevant information of past provisions created over the years versus actual refund made by the assessee. For the sake

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7294/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

sides and perused the material available on record. During the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee acquired by way of slump sale on a going concern basis the Qualigens Fine Chemicals Division from GSK Pharma Ltd. Further, during the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee acquired on a slump sale ... assessee in two transaction of acquisition of two units. The assessee claimed that those acquisitions are for purchase of unit for lumpsum consideration, as going concerns in the nature of slump sale, which is subject to capital gain tax us 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 7393/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

sides and perused the material available on record. During the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee acquired by way of slump sale on a going concern basis the Qualigens Fine Chemicals Division from GSK Pharma Ltd. Further, during the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee acquired on a slump sale ... assessee in two transaction of acquisition of two units. The assessee claimed that those acquisitions are for purchase of unit for lumpsum consideration, as going concerns in the nature of slump sale, which is subject to capital gain tax us 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

sides and perused the material available on record. During the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee acquired by way of slump sale on a going concern basis the Qualigens Fine Chemicals Division from GSK Pharma Ltd. Further, during the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee acquired on a slump sale ... assessee in two transaction of acquisition of two units. The assessee claimed that those acquisitions are for purchase of unit for lumpsum consideration, as going concerns in the nature of slump sale, which is subject to capital gain tax us 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according

Thermo Fisher Scienftific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 1236/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

sides and perused the material available on record. During the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee acquired by way of slump sale on a going concern basis the Qualigens Fine Chemicals Division from GSK Pharma Ltd. Further, during the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee acquired on a slump sale ... assessee in two transaction of acquisition of two units. The assessee claimed that those acquisitions are for purchase of unit for lumpsum consideration, as going concerns in the nature of slump sale, which is subject to capital gain tax us 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according