← 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

M/S. Ambattur Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2601/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated With Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaeca-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. Bipin, C.N., Cit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 11.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A)) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Vide Order Dated 12.08.2024. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 26/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

Rs.40,58,75,529.40/-. As indicated hereinbefore Goodwill includes a host of intangible assets, which a person acquires, on acquiring a business as a going concern and valuing the same at the excess consideration paid over and above the value of net tangible assets is an acceptable accounting practice. Thus ... indicated hereinbefore Goodwill includes a host of intangible assets, which a person acquires, on acquiring a business as a going concern and valuing the same at the excess consideration paid over and above the value of net tangible assets is an acceptable accounting practice. Thus, a further exercise to value

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 25/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

Rs.40,58,75,529.40/-. As indicated hereinbefore Goodwill includes a host of intangible assets, which a person acquires, on acquiring a business as a going concern and valuing the same at the excess consideration paid over and above the value of net tangible assets is an acceptable accounting practice. Thus ... indicated hereinbefore Goodwill includes a host of intangible assets, which a person acquires, on acquiring a business as a going concern and valuing the same at the excess consideration paid over and above the value of net tangible assets is an acceptable accounting practice. Thus, a further exercise to value

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 24/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

Rs.40,58,75,529.40/-. As indicated hereinbefore Goodwill includes a host of intangible assets, which a person acquires, on acquiring a business as a going concern and valuing the same at the excess consideration paid over and above the value of net tangible assets is an acceptable accounting practice. Thus

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 23/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

Rs.40,58,75,529.40/-. As indicated hereinbefore Goodwill includes a host of intangible assets, which a person acquires, on acquiring a business as a going concern and valuing the same at the excess consideration paid over and above the value of net tangible assets is an acceptable accounting practice. Thus ... indicated hereinbefore Goodwill includes a host of intangible assets, which a person acquires, on acquiring a business as a going concern and valuing the same at the excess consideration paid over and above the value of net tangible assets is an acceptable accounting practice. Thus, a further exercise to value

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 22/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

Rs.40,58,75,529.40/-. As indicated hereinbefore Goodwill includes a host of intangible assets, which a person acquires, on acquiring a business as a going concern and valuing the same at the excess consideration paid over and above the value of net tangible assets is an acceptable accounting practice. Thus

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 21/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

Rs.40,58,75,529.40/-. As indicated hereinbefore Goodwill includes a host of intangible assets, which a person acquires, on acquiring a business as a going concern and valuing the same at the excess consideration paid over and above the value of net tangible assets is an acceptable accounting practice. Thus

Gmm Pfaulder Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 839/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.839/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Gmm Pfaulder Ltd. The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, B-Jadav Chambers Ahmedabad-1 V/S. Navrangpura H.O. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ashram Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcg 0563 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Pr. Cit” For Short] Dated 07/03/2025 Passed In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020- 21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Gmm Pfaulder Ltd. Vs. Pcit Asst. Year : 2020-21 2

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32Section 80G

where goodwill had arisen on account of demerger of a division and the same represented excess consideration paid for acquisition of business as a going concern, depreciation on such goodwill is allowable under section 32(1) of the Act, being an intangible asset within the meaning of Explanation ... taxmann.com 283 (Guj.) / [2025] 477 ITR 392 (Guj.) has held that depreciation on goodwill representing the excess consideration paid for acquisition of a going concern is allowable under section 32(1) of the Act even post amendment. Therefore, the view taken by the Assessing Officer was a plausible view

Advance Info Distributors Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3596/DEL/2025[A.Y. 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Ms Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

existence and it was succeeded by M/s Advance Info Distributors Pvt. Ltd. which had taken over the business of the firm on a going concern basis and this agreement is on record in paper book from pages 8 to 11. 3. An intimation of dissolution of the firm was given ... firm but when the AO was duly informed about the dissolution of the firm and the new entity coming into existence on a going concern basis, then, the AO was supposed to take cognizance of the facts and issue notice on the new entity. Thus, issuance of notice upon

JCIT OSD, New Delhi vs. Statestreet Corporate Services Delhi Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in:

ITA 2504/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT- DR
Section 10A

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

JCIT(OSD), New Delhi vs. Statestreet Corporate Services Delhi Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in:

ITA 2503/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT- DR
Section 10A

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

JCIT(OSD), New Delhi vs. Statestreet Corporate Services Delhi Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in:

ITA 2502/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT- DR
Section 10A

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

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Glaxosmithkline Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Nabha

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 121/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, M/S Glaxosmithkline Circle 1(1), बनाम Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Patiala Road, Vs. Nabha. Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aafcg8415R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate With Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 32(1)

terms of clauses 6 and 8 of the Slump Sale Agreement dated 20.03.2015 with Novartis for acquiring its OTC Business on a going concern basis; certain conditions needed to be satisfied for completion of the slump sale. The conditions provided in Clause 6 stood duly satisfied on or before ... sale agreement as the OTC Development related assets and liabilities of R and D division of NHPL have not been taken over as a going concern. The agreement is clearly 18 121-Chd-2023 M/s Glaxosmithkline Consumer Pvt. Ltd, Nabha only regarding purchase of certain assets along with liabilities

Snw Smith Consultant Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 5, New Delhi

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

ITA 2635/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansnw Smith Consultant Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 5, 112-Gl, Antriksh Bhawan, New Delhi. 22, Kg Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aakcs4626B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Hasneeta Matta, Advocate Shri Mahan Kalra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Order : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, This Is Second Round Of Appeal After Setting Aside The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee To The File Of The Ao By The Coordinate Bench Vide Ita No.1588/Del/2020 To Verify The Expenditures Claimed By The Assessee Even Though There Was No Business Income

For Appellant: Ms. Hasneeta Matta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)

existence should have work all the time. There may be long intervals or inactivity and a concern may still be a going concern, though it may or some time be quiet and dormant. The mere fact that a businessman has not been able to obtain a contract and the business ... neither capital nor personal in nature. 5.3. The audited books of accounts and financial statements have not been rejected 5.4. The assessee is a Going Concern and there is no qualification by the Auditors 5.5. The assessee complied with statutory compliances with the MCA/ROC demonstrating that the assessee was maintaining

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

ITA 1110/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate For Revenue : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

short “NCLT”], Hyderabad vide order dated 15.11.2022 and Resolution Professional was appointed who is required to manage the operations of the Company as a “going concern”. Further, due to the commencement of CIRP, many employees particularly all the Senior Personnel in Finance and Taxation Department have left the organization

K Paramasivan & Sons, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp. Circlr-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1727/CHNY/2025[2012 13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1727/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri K. Paramasivan & Sons, The Deputy Commissioner 89, Anna Salai, Vs. Of Income Tax, Guindy, Non-Corporate Ward 19(1), Chennai – 600 032. Chennai. Pan: Aakfk 7053P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ (एस एम सी), "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2959/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250

held that TPO does not have jurisdiction to invoke Section 50C of the Act and ultimately held that the division was sold as a going concern and since the sale value is higher than the value determined under DCF and NAV method, the TPO cannot make any adjustment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2958/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250

held that TPO does not have jurisdiction to invoke Section 50C of the Act and ultimately held that the division was sold as a going concern and since the sale value is higher than the value determined under DCF and NAV method, the TPO cannot make any adjustment

Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre - Jao - ACIT, Corporate Circle, 3(1), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2757/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250

held that TPO does not have jurisdiction to invoke Section 50C of the Act and ultimately held that the division was sold as a going concern and since the sale value is higher than the value determined under DCF and NAV method, the TPO cannot make any adjustment

Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre - Jao - ACIT, Corporate Circle, 3(1), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2756/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250

held that TPO does not have jurisdiction to invoke Section 50C of the Act and ultimately held that the division was sold as a going concern and since the sale value is higher than the value determined under DCF and NAV method, the TPO cannot make any adjustment