“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 6112/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5965/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5964/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5963/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5962/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Ritesh Singh ACIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Trend Electronics Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

ITA 5461/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Shri Parth Parikh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 7

appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal primarily on the premise that, consequent upon liquidation of the assessee as a going concern and its acquisition on a “clean slate” basis, all statutory dues, including income-tax dues, stood extinguished in terms ... undersigned. The appellant had replied in the appellate proceedings for the AY 2018-19. The appellant submitted that the company was acquired as going concern by Mr. Jayprakash Bihani and Mr. Nandkishor Baheti (hereinafter referred as "Auction Purchasers") in e-auction at an agreed consideration of Rs.48

Ritesh Singh ACIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Trend Electronics Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5460/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 7

Ritesh Singh ACIT Circle 3 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Trend Electronics Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all result, all the three appeals are allowed for three appeals are allowed for statistical purpose statistical purpose

ITA 5459/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Parth Parikh, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 7

premise that, consequent ITA No. 5459 to 5461/MUM/2024 ITA No. 5459 to 5461/MUM/2024 4 Trend Electronics Limited upon liquidation of the assessee as a going concern and its upon liquidation of the assessee as a going concern and its upon liquidation of the assessee as a going concern ... appellant submitted that the company was acquired appellant submitted that the company was acquired appellant submitted that the company was acquired as going concern by Mr as going concern by Mr. Jayprakash Bihani and Mr. . Jayprakash Bihani and Mr. Nandkishor Baheti (hereinafter referred as "Auction Nandkishor Baheti (hereinafter referred

Aadarsh Surana, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

entered into a Business Succession-cum-Transfer Agreement with the company M/s.Amar Prakaash Developers Private Limited, whereby his proprietorship concern was transferred as a going concern to the company for a consideration of Rs.110,03,66,310/-. The consideration was discharged by way of allotment of equity shares valued ... Satish Babu [2016 (2) TMI 348] and submitted that the conversion of the assessee's proprietary concern into a private limited company as a going concern, wherein all the assets and liabilities of the proprietorship were taken over by the company and the assessee continued to hold

Dbg Leasing and Housing Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 8308/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Year : 2008-09 Dbg Leasing & Housing Ltd., Vs Ito, Ward 7(1), New Delhi C-88, Gali No. 8, Jyoti Colony, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032 (Pan: Aaacd0473F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR. DR

Section 147Section 29ASection 30(2)Section 31(1)

said Resolution Plan. 12.2. The Monitoring Committee shall oversee the implementation of the Resolution Plan. It shall assist to maintain Corporate Debtor as a going concern with business in good health, in trust, in furtherance of sale of the Corporate Debtor to the Resolution Applicant and no other Person

Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1111, 1112 & 1113/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Gayatri Projects Limited, The Dcit, Hyderabad – 500 082. Vs. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaacg8040K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri S Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 253(3)

case of appellant company and Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed who is required to manage the operations of company as a "going concern". Due to the commencement of CIRP, many employees particularly all the senior personnel in finance & taxation department have left the organization and is currently operating with very

Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri S Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 253(3)

Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1111/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri S Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 253(3)

Elcome Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6188/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr.-DR

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 37Section 41(1)

Industrial Research ('CSIR'). a. The AO erred in alleging that the bad debt is not allowable, since CSIR was a government entity and a going concern. b. The CIT(A) erred in concluding that the amount due from CSIR had not really become bad and ignored the settled principle that

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kct Papers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3380/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 391

property or assets of the demerged or any undertaking thereof by the resulting company; (vi) the transfer of the undertaking is on a going concern basis; (vii) the demerger is in accordance with the conditions, if any, notified under sub-section (5) of section 72A by the Central Government ... shares of the demerged company become shareholders of the resulting company;  The demerged company transfers the unit, division or business activity on a going concern basis. 7. In the present case, it is submitted that all the aforesaid conditions provided in section 2(1B) and section 2(19AA

Viacom 18, Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 2591/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32

Order dated 12 August 2016 Prisrn TV Private Limited has merged with Viacom18 Media Private Limited with effect from 1 April 2015 on a going concern basis. As per the said Order, the Company has paid a consideration of Rs 19,340,040,368 for the acquisition of Prism ... division of Network 18 Media & Investments Private Limited (formerly Network 18 Fincap Limited) under the Business Transfer Agreement dated 11 September 2007 on a going concern basis. As per the said agreement, the Company has paid a consideration of Rs 4,13,53,652 for the Net Current Assets aggregating

Gbt India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

ITA 1764/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

India Pvt. Ltd. (‘AEIPL’). AEIPL transferred its corporate travel division to the appellant assessee in a slump GBT India Pvt. Ltd. sale as a going concern with effect from 01.06.2014 for consideration of INR 454,885,303. The sum of INR 454,885,303 includes payment for Goodwill also. Among

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nevales Networks Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4827/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S. Nevales Networks Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, The Capital, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7, Plot-C70, M.K.Road, G Block, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadcn1748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

expenses paid, however, during the year end, due to the Non- viability of the business and the appellant company being not as a going concern, it was decided that Service Tax Input credit availed on expenses would be charged off to expenses instead of carrying it forward as an asset ... expenses paid, however, during the year end, due to the non-viability of the business and the appellant company being not as a going concern, it was decided that Service Tax Input credit availed on expenses would be charged off to expenses instead of carrying it forward as an asset

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 240/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

acquired the Packaging Business Unit of M/s. ITW India Limited on a slump sale and on ‘as is where is basis’ as a going concern for a purchase consideration was Rs.1,240 Crores which was arrived at by M/s. BSR & Company using the most accepted valuation methods viz., Discounted Cash ... basis of very same agreement for purchase of Industrial Packaging Business Unit of M/s. ITW India Limited as a going concern, on slump sale basis dated 22.11.2013, and after considering relevant facts, held that, the assessee is not entitled for depreciation on goodwill arising on account of acquisition

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 434/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32